


■'♦. V*" - 






GU 






-oo x 






>*' 









v ^0 



'/- 





o * v xs <U 



'A 



^ ^ 



■ 



} 



<^ .y 



Q V 






^ V ^ N 






<■ * 9 T * ^K 



0o y 



"^ 



\X V ' x >> 






•^ #* 






,0o 



^ 






v ^v : - f^'\ 




• ;v 



c 0> . c 






^ 



^ ^ 



* .x 



D V- 



\ 



Oo. 



> a 






^ ^ 



>. ft* 









*** %, 



V 






* - 



« 






o v 






r ^ 



,.- ,o- 



•*' . x 







%.* 9 " 0, x>^...V — -V^- 






-y x 



v v 






<p 



A 



*> % 



\ v 
V * 



^ 












~o * ,, 




• / J- 




1 ', c> 




^ 




<^« 


: 


^N t/> 






h 













,00. 



* ~o 



.9* C- 



Ci/V 



o x 









THE 

THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; 

OR 

BOOK OF DOGMAS: 

COMPRISING AN INQUIRY 

INTO THE 

REALITY OF THE DEATH 

AND THE 

NATURE OF THE RESURRECTION 

OF 

JESUS CHRIST, 

TOGETHER WITH A CONCISE VIEW OF THE 

SEVERAL DOGMAS 



INSPIRATION, FAITH, MYSTERY, TRINITY, ORIGINAL DEPRAVITY, 
REGENERATION, VICARIOUS ATONEMENT, ENDLESS MISERY, 
SECOND ADVENT, ETC., WITH A FEW OF THEIR PAL- 
PABLE INCONSISTENCIES AND CONSEQUENCES. 

BY A UNITHEIST. 



" Search the scriptures; for, in them ye think ye have eternal 
fe."— John v. 39. 

" The good of the people is the supreme law." 
" In medio tutissimus." 



BOSTON: 
1847. 



THE 



THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; 

it 

OR 

BOOK OF DOGMAS: 

COMPRISING AN INQUIRY 



INTO THE 



REALITY OF THE DEATH 



AND THE 



NATURE OP THE RESURRECTION 

OF 

JESUS CHRIST, 

TOGETHER WITH A CONCISE VIEW OF THE 

SEVERAL DOGMAS 



INSPIRATION, FAITH, MYSTERY, TRINITY, ORIGINAL DEPRAVITY, 
REGENERATION, VICARIOUS ATONEMENT, ENDLESS MISERY, 
SECOND ADVENT, ETC., WITH A FEW OF THEIR PAL- 
PABLE INCONSISTENCIES AND CONSEQUENCES. 



BY A UNITHEIST. 



" Search the scriptures; for, in them ye think ye have eternal 
life."-~John v. 39. 

" The good of the people is the supreme law." 
" In medio tutissimus." 



BOSTON: 

1847. 






1#* 



IS 






INDEX. 



PAGE. 

Address to the clergy of the U. S. A., . . . . vii. 

Introduction, 1 

Inspiration, 5 

Faith, 12 

Mystery, 14 

The Trinity, 15 

Original Depravity, 17 

Grace, . . . . .18 

Election, 19 

Public Prayer, 19 

Regeneration, 20 

Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, 21 

Vicarious Atonement, . . » . . . . 23 

Endless Misery, .28 

Eesponsibility of Believers, ...... 33 

Theory of the Resurrection, . . .35 

The Trial, . .40 

The Crucifixion, 44 

The Death, . 46 

The Burial, 62 

The Resurrection, . .64 

The Ascension, ' 74 

Recapitulation, 79 

Testimony of the Acts, . . . ... ■ . . .83 

" " Epistles, ...... 92 

" " Ancient Fathers, 96 

Second Advent, . . . . . . 99 

Reflections, ," ! Ill 

Synopsis of the Dogmas, . 114 

Conclusion, 117 

Appendix A, . . 121 

" B, 123 

" C, 123 

" D. 124 



EXPLANATION. ♦ 

iCT'Italicised words in the Bible, it is generally under- 
stood, are words not to be found in the original Greek; 
but, were supplied by the royal translaters. In several 
quoted passages in this work, we have indiscriminately 
italicised words, which we design for emphatic expres- 
sions, as well as such as are not in the original. 



TO PROFESSOR GEORGE BUSH; 

Sir: 

Just one hundred years ago, appeared in old merry 
England, from the pen of Gilbert West, an erudite 
treatise on the Resurrection, which was clerically popu- 
lar, and which brought much honor to the zealous author. 
As the full century is rolling .by, on its last revolution, 
appears, in Puritanical New England, another small trea- 
tise, perhaps not so learned, nor so ecclesiastic, nor so 
popular, on the same subject. This is, very reverently, 
dedicated to the Clergy of America through you, — the 
prominent champion of Anastasis for the nineteenth cen- 
tury, — and humbly submitted to your inspection and 
searching criticism, by the 

AUTHOR, 

June 1, 1847. 



ERRATA. 

Page 5, Line 23, instead of founder read founders. 
4 art read genius. 

33, insert xxiii., 6, between Acts and xxvi., 5. 
instead of senator read general. 

" Revelations read Revelation. 

" dialeusetai read dieleusetai. 

" xtper katherzomenon read uperkath- 

[ezomenon. 
" Kakou read Kakon. 

He read It. 
" throne in read throne of. 

" kindred read kindreds. 

" and the Son, read and of the son. 



5, 


Lint 


J 23, 


9, 


u 


6, 


38, 


cc 


33, 


42, 


u 


29, 


50, 


K 


25, 


51, 


(( 


5, 


67, 


u 


27, 


67, 


U 


2S, 


79, 


ct 


30, 


101, 


(< 


10, 


105, 


11 


13, 


106, 


(( 


8, 



ADDRESS TO THE CLERGY 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



The correct sentiment of clerical as well as of popular 
responsibility, is rapidly pervading community, — that cler- 
gymen as well as laymen are accountable for^ their wilful 
errors of judgment and conduct. And not only do we pro- 
nounce this true, but we go farther: we declare, without 
fear of contradiction, that, instead of the laity being an- 
swerable to the clergy, the clergy are amenable to the peo- 
ple; and the sensible and high-minded of that order know 
this fact. They are an organized body. The cone, whose 
clerical apex has heretofore rested on the ground, and 
whose popular base has been unnaturally poised in the 
air, is daily resuming its true position. Men begin gener- 
ally to see ministers in a religious light as they saw kings in 
a political light, and are willing for them to enjoy the com- 
mon immunities of freemen. They know and feel that all 
sovereignty belongs to the people; and that their rulers re- 
main such only by courtesy. Their former claim. was an al- 
leged right. At least, it is becoming a prevalent doctrine in 
America; and America, by her almost omnipotent influ- 
ence, is destined to remodel the world. Heretofore, the pas- 
tor has been the supplying tankard; and his congregation, 
the receiving cups. They passively imbibed whatever he 
poured out to them. He could pour out nothing, except 
what he contained: and thus did his audience assfhnilate 
their opinions to his, right or wrong. Now, the hearers 
wish to resort to the original reservoir, and to supply 



Vlll ADDRESS TO THE CLERGY 

themselves with the pure truth, before it has been tainted 
by passing through secondary tankards. This they have 
an undoubted right to do, in an age of inquiry like the 
present. They are convinced that a cup is equal to a 
tankard; for, each one is capable of holding all that the 
latter can pour out. 

People generally are conscious that the unbiassed views 
of one, with regard to moral truths and integrity of con- 
duct, cannot so much vary from the unbiassed views of 
another, as the discordant sects imply. They know that 
truth is a unity, and its attendant is harmony ; that error 
is legion, and its satellite is discord: and hence, that errors 
are interwoven in sectarian doctrines. They desire not to 
annihilate the clergy: they merely wish for a reform, — to 
have you, who profess to be patterns for imitation, set an 
example of unanimity and charity, — to have you preach the 
Word, as it is; for, the nearer you approach the standard 
of reason, the better will you agree. Truth never dis- 
agreed with reason. They therefore rightfully demand 
reasonable discourses; and they want the keeping of their 
own consciences. The leaven of liberality has already par- 
tially eradicated many theological chimeras: it is speeding 
onward to explode the residue. It is universally spread- 
ing; and the bands which now confine it, must ere long 
yield to its expanding pressure. Men are ready to raise 
their voices still higher than they have raised them. The 
mighty national pulse beats quicker. Foreign aid, — ster- 
ling Germany is contributing her intellectual indepen- 
dence, as France, in our Revolution, gave us a mag- 
nanimous Lafayette. Reason quivers for liberty. The 
liberal Christians may be illustrated by a battery of Ley- 
den jars, charged with electricity, but isolated from each 
other. Want of communication keeps them severally 
ignorant of the immense number enjoying the same opin- 
ion, and thus incapable of co-operation. Let the current 
be found, which requires but an instantaneous touch; and 



OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. IX 

the discharge will soon purify the atmosphere by precipi- 
tating its noxious miasma. It is so in every reform: and 
it will not be long, before the omnipotent temptation of 
circumstances, the common prime-mover, will create a 
competent reformer. The world's history proves that the 
tide of humanity rises to a certain height, and then sub- 
sides, washing away some impurity at every flood; that 
change, improvement, renovation; progress, are its in- 
separable characteristics. 

Our object, in this little treatise, is truth. Our intention, 
to investigate whether the doctrine of the resurrection, as 
usually understood, is founded in reality; whether there is 
satisfactory evidence to establish the fact; or whether, by 
having had the narration in a dead language, unintelligi- 
ble to the mass, and by attaching arbitrary definitions to 
that language, as has been evidently done by the transla- 
tors; and after that, having put your own construction 
even upon the corrupt translation, that doctrine has been 
manufactured. We have summoned a group of exploded 
dogmas, for the purpose of showing their inconsistency 
and evil tendency, — dogmas that bewilder and mislead a 
man through life, and torture him, like so many fiends, at 
the hour of death. We appeal to those who have dis- 
owned them, if they do not live as happy without them. 
If this doctrine be true, it can be unanswerably demon- 
strated: if not, men of reason, " why cumbereth it the 
ground?" 

It is our design rather to throw out a {ew hints on the 
within considered subjects, in a succinct and convenient 
form, as a nucleus for co-laborers to meditate upon, and 
to increase if they please, than to enter into a wide discus- 
sion of doctrines, that might individually be swelled into a 
volume; and whose deleterious effects have been sadly ex- 
perienced by humanity. It is no senseless tirade against 
you. On the contrary, your concentrated clerical. re- 
search and abilities are invoked to test the validity of our 



X ADDRESS TO THE CLERGY 

views. Libraries, correspondence, seminaries, are at 
your behest. You hold the keys of theological faith. You 
modify learning, education, from the hoary head to the 
prattling infant. If you detect any radical errors herein, 
we would have you designate them: for, it is not our 
slightest desire to have a fallacy darken the world with 
its shadow. We demand your candor. 

Fully conscious are we of our position between two for- 
midable parties, and of the bitter censure we shall incur. 
Believers and unbelievers will combine against the doc- 
trine. Did we not sincerely believe ourself to be protected 
on all sides by a castle of truth, alarm would seize us. — 
But, a mountain of irrational reproach weighs not a feath- 
er in the scale of justice. It may threaten; it may rage; 
it cannot destroy the minutest particle of reason. If any 
one feels disposed to denounce, we warn him to pause, first, 
and to reflect, whether the team. may not be in his own eye, 
whether his own notions are not erroneous, and whether it 
will not be more Christian-like to expose any detected 
error by deliberate, convincing reasoning, or admit the 
truth, however severely it may rebuke him. A mild 
course is far better and more effectual than a harsh one. 

A proper season has arrived for the laity to speak; and 
as one of them, we open our mouth through the medium 
of this brief work, by committing it to your inspection. — 
We have been patiently and respectfully listening to you 
and contributing ample benefices for your support, year 
after year, through centuries; and we think that this con- 
sideration alone entitles us to a fair hearing. We speak 
but seldom; you preach continually. We invade not the 
legitimate rights of your pulpit; then, respect our correct 
opinions. If we be disallowed these just claims, we have 
an inalienable consolation of internal satisfaction in having 
discharged an incumbent duty, and the strong conviction 
that, millions of heads and hearts will secretly respond to 



OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. XI 

our sentiments, and millions of tongues will, in due time, 
publicly proclaim them. 

c: Truth, crushed to earth, will rise again, 

The eternal years of God are hers ; 
While Error , wounded, writhes in pain, 

And dies amid her worshippers/"' 

We regret our postponement of a promulgation of these 
opinions; but, it may not be too late for them, if false, to 
be refuted, — if true, to do good. Much and long consid- 
eration has deepened our conviction in their strength and 
rationality. However, we cheerfully submit them to your 
investigation, believing with Jefferson that no error can 
do harm, when truth is left free to combat it, and in the 
interval, remain your fellow citizen and well-wisher, 

A UNITHEIST. 

Portland, June, 1S47. 



THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE. 



INTRODUCTION. 



There are two distinct and separate classes in the com- 
munity — the believer and the unbeliever. From the com- 
mencement of Christianity, in all ages and in all nations, 
they have ever been at variance in points of religious 
controversy. Each has mustered all its available forces, 
and rallied all its available strength, to confound the other 
with argument. The warfare has been incessant with 
little prospect of termination. The one has strenuously 
maintained his ground by appeals to history; the other 
has as obstinately persisted in his unbelief in his views on 
the authority of reason. The one has contended that the 
Bible is a revelation from God, and that such a revela- 
tion is necessary to the welfare and salvation of the hu- 
man race; the other has pointed at the inconsistencies of 
his antagonist's assertions, and the unreasonableness of 
his creeds. The one has arduously labored to establish 
the authenticity of the Scriptures; the other has stoutly 
denied the coincidence of its doctrines, as preached, with 
human reason. The one has declared revelation to su- 
persede this faculty; the other has insisted upon it that 
reason is implanted by God within the breast, as a judge, 
to decide what shall be accepted and what rejected; and 
that every sentiment incurring its disapprobation, is not a 
1 



% THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE. 

revelation from God, — it being the only arbiter of what 
is and what is not revelation. The believer has presumed 
that what is generally admitted, and has long been 
adopted by others, must consequently be true; the un- 
believer has affirmed that mankind generally admitted the 
Ptolemaic system of the Universe, but that the admission 
did not prove it true, as has been incontestibly demon- 
strated. The believer has reposed implicit confidence in 
his spiritual teacher, and asserted his claim to credit, on 
the ground that he had devoted a life to the study of the 
Bible; the unbeliever has replied that the teacher was 
liable to err, that he also had relied upon his teacher, and 
he upon his predecessor, and so on up to the first re- 
ligious teacher: and that, after all, it was but the senti- 
ment of a single man, and that his own judgment was as 
good as that of the first minister : also, that individuals 
have often spent their lives in erroneous views. The be- 
liever has pronounced the Book sacred, and not to be in- 
vestigated by the weak reason of humanity; the unbe- 
liever has claimed a right to determine by evidence 
whether it be sacred; and insists that if it be, it ought 
not to preclude examination. 

Thus have they been at antipodes. Both have some in- 
disputable arguments; and both have erred. The be- 
liever has promulgated doctrines not taught in the Bible; 
and the unbeliever, supposing that they are, has aimed 
his shaft at the edifice, instead of striking directly at the 
scaffold. He has been dazzled by the false lights held out 
by his deluded antagonist, and herein has had the dis- 
advantage; for, the believer has at once resorted to the 
historical proofs, and thereby made a strong defence. 
But, the unbeliever has led the more liberal believer to a 
consideration of those corruptions; and by his means have 
they been exposed. He has likewise had the disadvantage 
of being opposed by public opinion, whose subservient 
worshippers are always ready to stigmatize an improve- 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. O 

ment, as an innovation, and a reformer as a disorganizer, 
and to incarcerate or destroy him as an enemy dangerous 
to the stability of — Iheir corruptions. 

The doctrines of Plenary Inspiration, of the Trinity, of 
Original Depravity, of Vicarious Atonement, of Endless 
Punishment, of the Resurrection, of the Second Advent, 
and others, have been thrown as stumbling blocks in the 
way of the unbeliever; and he has rejected them as repug- 
nant to reason. Our design is to examine cursorily each of 
these dogmas, and to show that they are erroneous, and 
cannot, if true, have any radical bearing on the unchange- 
able principles of morality, — the only substantial, true, 
and reasonable ingredients of religion. We propose to 
confine our attention chiefly to the New Testament; and 
to examine the value of the above-mentioned figments, as 
merely connected with the main object of this work. 

We invite all to scrutinize our every step in this inves- 
tigation, and to designate any error that may attract 
their notice. For the sake of truth, this is requested. 
And though we are aware our views conflict not only with 
those of all denominations, but also with those of the un- 
believer, we feel it to be our imperious duty to present 
them. To the human mind we would present them, not 
to the prejudices, to the zeal, nor to the selfishness of par- 
ties or sects. We believe, we know, it will afford a plat- 
form sufficiently broad to receive all — Mahometans and 
Jews as well as Christians, unbelievers as well as conflict- 
ing sectaries, Africans as well as Americans ; for, it is 
God's platform of human equality. Its uniform standard 
is reason, a faculty common to each and all of our race. 
— a faculty, not an airy name. In Italy, it may be called 
" ragione "; in France, " raison "; in Greece, it may as- 
sume, in uncouth characters, the appellation of " logos "; 
Rome may have once termed it "ratio "; and the differ- 
ent people of those different countries may be unlike in 
complexion, customs, and forms of religion; yet, the eter- 



4 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 

nal, the universal principle, the unchanging essence, 
REASON, is the same in all. There is no human stan- 
dard, to which we cau so safely resort. Nature is in con- 
formity to it. Prejudice, bigotry, superstition, incre- 
dulity, excitement, are perversions, and engender bad re- 
sults. Let, then, all adopt a reasonable view; and those 
sharp faces may be made as smooth and mild as the ethe- 
rial blue; those harsh words may be softened into tones 
of melodious unison; those cold hands may be mutuallv 
grasped with the cordiality of friends; and the averted eye 
may beam with the pleasant and steady look of recog- 
nition. 

We would endeavor to indicate wherein the unbeliever 
has erred in rejecting the whole en masse ; and in what 
the believer has been mistaken in receiving all with the 
construction put upon it by others. It would be delight- 
ful to behold both classes cease their strife over a sublime 
system of progressive philanthropy, advance towards each 
other, and unite on the platform spread out by their com- 
mon Father. And, therefore, we fondly hope each will 
let his reason have unbiassed scope in considering a ques- 
tion, fraught with such momentous consequences. 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 



PLENARY INSPIRATION. 



The first erroneous view generally entertained, which 
we would endeavor to rectify is, that every word in the New 
Testament is divinely inspired. This involves the supposi- 
tion not only that the original author and the recorders of 
the doctrines therein inculcated, but also that the copyists, 
the translators, and the printers, were inspired; or how 
know we that they infused the precise meaning intended, 
— that they made no transcript errors, — no misinterpreta- 
tions, — no typographical errors, no transposition of pages, 
chapters, verses, or commas ? A freedom from which is 
indispensably requisite to make the collation perfect; and 
divine inspiration, as commonly understood, implies per- 
fection. And does it not also require that the reader should 
be inspired to understand it in its primitive sense? We 
know he may see the words with his external eye; but, 
unless he enters into the spirit of it, unless his mind is in 
a similar condition or state with the communicator's, how 
can he understand it to the full extent? — how can it be a 
perfect, unimpaired revelation to him ? And by this pe- 
culiar state of mind we mean inspiration as generally re- 
garded. 

Now, we know that but few of the sentiments and works 
of the founder were recorded; and that of those which 
were, not all have reached us. We have the bare outline 
of facts, exhibiting marks that designate almost any thing 
but perfection. However slight may be the mistakes, 
however minute may be the interpolations, however trivial 
the transpositions, they deviate to that degree; and as the 
removal of a single grain of sand from the foundation may 
topple a gigantic edifice, so may a diminutive alteration 
herein change the features of the whole. Take, for in- 



6 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 

stance, the interpolation * in the first Epistle of John, v., 
7 — " There are three that bear record in heaven, the 
Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three 
are one," first found in the writings of a Latin writer of 
no credit, very near the close of the fifth century; and 
consider what an engine it has been made to drag a cer- 
tain well-known doctrine from the Bible. And notwith- 
standing the admission of its spuriousness, it is suffered 
to remain ; and is even sometimes quoted to deceive the ig- 
norant. They think it must be true, because it is in the 
Bible. How false is such a conclusion, is evident. In 
truth, this verse has in latter times been selected as a cor- 
ner stone; and all the rest have been bent or perverted to 
match it, for the purpose of making it appear that the 
Scriptures contain the doctrine of the Trinity. Strange 
kind of inspiration ! 

Our idea is that all men are born with the same kind of 
faculties, differing only in degree; and that consequently 
the writers of the New Testament being men, are subject 
to this rule. The evangelists recorded the facts, each in 
his own peculiar manner; and hence, we perceive, as with 
other contemporary writers, some things were omitted by 
one which were not by another. Each mentioned such 
as were most prominent in his mind. Had the writings 
of more evangelists descended to us, they would doubtless 
have contained incidents, passed over by the four, as one 
of them does some that are unmentioned by his three fel- 
low-recorders. We are to view their narrations as we 
would all other histories. Our reason is to tell us what 
they teach; and whether their instructions are rational. 
If we sincerely believe they are, it is our duty to receive 
them as truths; if we disbelieve, it is equally our duty to 
reject such, and not the whole for a deficiency in a part. 



* See Appendix A. 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 7 

Because John has a spurious passage — of the three 
heavenly witnesses, foisted upon him, we would not have 
the Golden Rule discarded. In fine, we would not have 
the whole destroyed on account of one error; but, let the 
errors be sifted from the truths. 

We hold that it did not require more than a common 
man to write down those facts and sayings. If they dif- 
fered from other people, it was in their tact and candor. 
It is not admissible to our mind, that any extraordinary 
interposition of God was necessary; nor do the various 
manners in which they relate their story prove any unity 
of inspiration. If they were aware of the immense im- 
portance posterity would attach to the offspring of their 
labors, and really believed it worthy of such, one would sup- 
pose they would have been more particular, and if they were 
inspired with any sentiment, it must have been with care- 
lessness, or we should have had more minute accounts. 

We question not the inspiration of the authors of 
original truths, though we attach a signification to the 
word unlike the general acceptation. We conceive that 
there is a variety of grades in the powers of the human 
mind. One man may be a greater geometrician than an- 
other, while the latter may, in his turn, possess a greater 
aptitude to language. One may be distinguished for pro- 
fundity of argument, another may excel in the faculty of 
description. One may shine as an eminent astronomer, 
another may be a clear-headed moralist. Nor do we per- 
ceive any objection to a man's combining two, or more of 
these faculties within himself. So far as it goes, expe- 
rience teaches us that this is the case. Some are not only 
great writers and orators, but are able to comprehend the 
chain of events, as statesmen, and with their deep know- 
ledge of human nature, can predict occurrences previous 
to their transpiration, and long before others can imagine 
such. The principles investigated by the mathematician 
were not invented by him; he is only a discoverer of what 



» THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 

already existed. They may indeed be divine; so are all 
truths. In this light, accordingly, are the correct doc- 
trines of the New Testament divine. And inasmuch as 
the principles of morality can effect more happiness in 
the world than can the principles of other sciences, 
they are of a more exalted nature. The discoverer of 
them is therefore regarded with the greater respect and 
veneration. These truths emanate from the same fountain, 
and are consequently equally inspired. The difference 
is merely verbal, consisting only in their transmission 
through different channels. And whatever inspiration 
these channels may possess, is derived from the matter 
flowing through them. Sir Isaac Newton's intellect was 
a channel through which God conveyed the developed 
plan of the Universe. Jesus Christ's superior talents 
were the channel of morality from God to mankind. The 
one was the revelator of the physical; the other, of the 
moral laws of the Universe. Neither of them were cre- 
ators or framers of them; but, the discoverers : for, the 
principles long preceded their existence, and remained 
unchanged by the process of discovery. They could ap- 
ply them, but neither add to nor subtract from their es- 
sential validity. 

But, we have very little, if any faith, in supernatural 
power, except so far as the term means more than ordinary, 
relatively considered. At his birth, every man has his 
faculties in embryo, to be developed in future by the 
force of circumstances. We hold that age creates none 
in addition, but merely modifies those already created. 
Nor do we believe that any one has been inspired in any 
other manner than in that which we have mentioned; 
neither do the evangelists require us to believe in the in- 
spiration of their writings, but only to credit their truth. 
Whatever appears new in after life, is only superficially 
so; in truth, it is but a development and cultivation of 
some faculty, not previously called into action. It had 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. V 

been in the man, and formed a part of him from his first 
breath. Hence, we find Christ, at the early age of 
twelve, disputing, as was the custom, with the doctors in 
the temple. — [Luke ii., 42-46.] He was'obeying the im- 
pulses of his nature. So also do we observe Newton, in 
his youth, busily employed in miniature works of art. 

From this we collect that the apostles and the writers 
of the New Testament were men of human passions, and 
liable to err as well as others. Even Christ is represented 
as an individual, who was " tempted in all points " like 
us, — [Heb., iv., 15,] and "made perfect through suffer- 
ings "; — [Heb. ii., 10,] and who " increased in wisdom, " 
— [Luke ii., 52,] and consequently was capable of im- 
provement. Of the apostles, Peter was several times ac- 
cused of error; and once particularly, at'Antioch, Paul 
says he withstood him to the face publicly, because he was 
to be blamed. — [Gal. ii., 11.] Thomas is said to have 
erred in incredulity; and Judas Iscariot to have trans- 
gressed by palpable perfidy. And Paul and Barnabas 
had such a sharp contention that they separated ; — 
[Acts xv., 39,] must not one or both have been wrong? 
They declared themselves to be "men of like passions " 
[Acts xiv., 15, J with others. Peter likewise assured the 
devout Cornelius, " I myself am also a man. "—[Acts x., 
26.] And at the arrest of their Master, we are told that 
"they all forsook him and fled. "--[Mark xiv., 50.] J-f. 
then, as is abundantly evident, they were subject to err in 
these respects, why should we not be hereby induced to 
scrutinize their writings, especially those containing their 
own sentiments ? for, after all, we are as capable of judg- 
ing their divinity as were the authors of them. They are 
as directly addressed*to us, as they were to their first pe- 
rusers; and each one's reason demands a right to exam- 
ine. The doctrine of " weak and feeble creatures, of 



10 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J 

erring judgment, fallible beings," so industriously circu- 
lated, is as applicable to those men as it is to us. It is a 
mere ruse to subjugate the human mind to the prejudiced 
opinions of those who claim the supremacy over the whole 
man; and who are as liable to err as any of us, even in 
the use of those very terms. At any rate, such a doctrine 
causes one to distrust his own powers, and tends to para- 
lyze them into lethargy. 

And should we closely examine the Scriptures through- 
out, we should detect many errors interspersed therein. 
We will just touch on a few. As an instance of a transcript 
error by the copyist, we would refer to the passage, "Great 
is the mystery of godliness ; God was manifest in the flesh, " 
[Tim. iii., 16, J * as recorded in our translation, which in 
the original manuscripts, for the first four or five centu- 
ries, was M Great is the mystery of godliness: which was 
manifested in the flesh." This has been summoned as an 
able coadjutor of the three heavenly witnesses. As an 
instance of mistranslation, [Hebrews xi., l,"j "Faith is 
the evidence of things not seen." Faith or belief may be 
produced by evidence; but, it can not be identical with 
it, as is apparent to all. It may be synonymous with 
"conviction" a better adaptation of the Greek original 
to the sense. As to the chapters, verses, capital letters, 
and commas, there were none in the original. This is 
the work of copyists, translators, &c. With regard to in- 
terpolations, all the titles and superscriptions of the chap- 
ters, and italicised words, are interpolated; so also is the 
expression, [Gal. iv., 25,] " is Mount Sinai in Arabia." | 
Concerning the infusion of the precise meaning, intended 
to be conveyed, into the translation, which is indispensa- 
ble to invest it with force equivalent to the original, we 
would say that there are a great many sects, and each one 
construes it in a different manner, deriving altogether dif- 

* See Appendix B. t See Appendix C. 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 11 

ferent views, from another; and each one appeals to rev- 
elation for countenance and authority. They can all 
agree that twice two makes four, that a stone tends to the 
ground, and that a broken limb produces pain; because 
they are propositions founded in reason. So can they 
agree in theological matters, if they will act in accordance 
with nature, and test their views by this faculty. Truths 
really revealed, or emanating from God, will perfectly 
harmonize with this standard; for, they are as simple and 
intelligible as elementary mathematical axioms, and they 
will harmonize with nothing else. So that we perceive 
the writings, as extant among us, hardly attain the mark 
of perfection; and therefore, cannot be entirely the off- 
spring of inspiration by God. 

We hence conclude that mankind are authorized to 
judge each and <evevy passage by that faculty, to which 
they directly appeal. They might otherwise be considered 
as addressed to animals destitute of reason, — to horses, 
elephants, fishes, and birds, which is preposterous. They 
are adapted to the intelligence of humanity; and by the 
decision of humanity, rationally given, they must stand or 
fall. We are inclined to award to them that credit to 
which they are reasonably entitled, and no more, what- 
ever may be the assertions to the contrary, within or with- 
out the English Bible. 



12 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J 



FAITH. 

Faith seems to be the next subject demanding our at- 
tention. By this term, we understand that conviction of 
the mind which results from a consideration of adequate 
testimony, presented to us concerning any proposition or 
event. It is a creature of circumstances. One motive 
will incline us this way; another stronger, and of a con- 
trary character, will supersede that, and supplant the be- 
lief it occasioned; and so on. Reason is to govern us in 
this particular as well as in others. It is to test the evi- 
dence, and declare whether it be competent or not. To 
entertain implicit belief, without requisite investigation, is 
absolutely wrong in that individual, who has the means, 
opportunity, and ability to examine. It tends to quench 
curiosity, to stupify activity, to abolish the desire of free- 
dom; audi motives to these are innate in the mind by na- 
ture. However strenuously may be the opposite doctrine 
taught, however roundly may the contrary be asserted, 
they will not radically alter the fact. A wilful violation 
of natural laws is wrong ; and an obstinate and effectual 
resistance to their operation constitutes a violation. In 
truth, that man who reposes such implicit belief, unless 
the circumstances or evidences recommend themselves to 
his intuition, as according with reason, is more liable 
to moral condemnation than he who candidly refuses to ad- 
mit the unwarrantable conclusion. 

As a free man believes, so he acts. Belief then is one con- 
troller of men's actions. If a person, really desirous to live, 
sincerely believes that by plunging himself under water he 
will terminate his existence, he will avoid that course; if he 
believes that a certain medicine within his reach will re- 
move a malady to which he is subject, he will endeavorto ap- 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 13 

ply it. This invests the principle of belief with great impor- 
tance. And we are so constituted that a certain degree of 
evidence, received by the mind, will at all hazards pro- 
duce conviction; so that belief, under such circumstances, 
has no merit in itself, although the means employed to pro- 
cure the necessary evidence may entitle the individual to 
credit; and the reward is internal satisfaction. But the 
idea that he is infinitely culpable for not admitting a prop- 
osition at sight, unless it be self-evident in his mind, and 
that he is doomed to endless condemnation therefor, is ab- 
surd; though the consequences flowing from his acts 
through ignorance of the same, may effect an injury; but, 
he cannot be morally accountable. 

Yet, the belief of one man, of an assembly of men, or 
the united belief of all mankind, in a proposition, through 
a series of centuries, does not always amount to certain 
knowledge; nor does it establish the truth of a fact. The 
evidence, upon which it was founded, may have been suf- 
ficient for this purpose; and it may not. This has no effect 
whatever on the fact itself; but, is entirely independent of 
it. Many instances, in confirmation of this, will suggest 
themselves to every intelligent being. We hold this rule 
to be universal: a man or a body of men may believe a 
thing, without absolutely knowing it, and still be errone- 
ous in their opinions. Whether they live in happiness, or 
suffer torture and death, in consequence of it, these acts 
establish not their truth; they are wholly extraneous. If 
you can convince one of his absolute ignorance on any 
subject, and that you are skilled in it, he is too often a 
willing dupe of imposture. Hence the necessity of as- 
serting one's independence in a subject like that of re- 
ligion, as equally open to all, or as no revelation. 

Such are our views of faith, whether considered in a re- 
ligious, an intellectual, or a physical light. And to this 
test we would bring all writers, preachers, and believers. 



14 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; 



MYSTERY. 

This term, as defined by some, is diametrically incon- 
sistent with revelation. Indeed, they are antithetical; 
the one is equivalent to light; the other to darkness. Their 
identity is impossible. They are absolutely incompatible 
with each other. Where mystery begins, revelation ter- 
minates, as day is succeeded by night. 

It is only applicable to the unknown, to the unintelligi- 
ble: and what is revealed is known and intelligible, and 
explicable. So soon as any thing is explained, it ceases 
to be a mystery. We may be convinced that water is 
composed of two gases; that it will boil quicker on the 
summit than at the base of a mountain, without under- 
standing why. We may behold plants and trees vegetate, 
without knowing how. We may be certain of the ex- 
istence of the Aurora Borealis, without comprehending its 
cause. So of all physical things. What is revealed we 
can understand and explain; and what we can neither ex- 
plain nor understand, is not revealed to us. 

Moral truths, however, are receivable at sight. They 
are simple, and easily comprehended. Mystery can have 
no fellowship with them. When we are told it is wrong 
to injure a person, we understand why, how, and all about 
it. Self-proof is one of the attributes of a moral truth: 
and it never can be an attribute of a mystery. Hence, 
no mystery can be a moral truth and a mystery at the 
same time, to the same person. 

That there is a governing principle in the universe is 
admitted by all; for, they have sufficient evidence to sus- 
tain that belief,, though we know not how it was produced. 
There is nothing in known nature so strictly analogical 
to it as to afford us any insight into the mode of its produc- 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 15 

tion. The fact is a revelation; the cause is a mystery. 
But this is the highest physical truth; and it would re- 
quire no supernatural talents or divine interposition to 
make an accurate record of it. Besides, the continued 
existence is an accompanying proof to all ages. So with 
the existence of man; it is an immovable demonstration 
of the wonder performed in his first creation. So with 
every other real wonder; the natural universe furnishes 
ample and permanent testimony for its establishment to 
every kindred and tongue. The narration of such, then, 
as have not this evidence for their support, must have 
been fabricated. In fine, God divulges nothing without 
surrounding it with the most indubitable insignia of re- 
ality, nor without eternal proofs. 



THE TRINITY. 



In connection with this, we would consider the doctrine 
of the Trinity, an engrafted excrescence on divine mani- 
festations. It is based on an incongruity, that three are 
equal to one, and one is equal to three. If the Father be 
supreme, the Son cannot be; if the Son be, the Father 
cannot; and if the Holy Ghost be, neither of the other 
two can; unless the names be different appellations of the 
same being: and appellations are not persons, but totally 
distinct from them. If it be a physical truth, where is 
the proof? If it be a mystery, it cannot have been re- 
vealed; nor can it be a moral truth, for it is incompre- 
hensible. If it has not been revealed, on what authority 
is the existence of the Trinity asserted ? So that it is de- 
ficient in all the competent tests of a fact or truth. 

We have seen above, that the passages upon which the 



16 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; 

principal stress is laid, were interpolated or miscopied. 
And, for the sake of curiosity, we will briefly state the 
history of this dogma. The supremacy of the Father 
was invariably acknowledged by Christ. Not the slightest 
intimation of the divinity of the Son was given before Jus- 
tin Martyr hinted it. He died about A. D. 163. All the 
rest of the Christian world were in profound ignorance 
concerning it. The personification and deification of the 
Logos or Word, and its identity with Jesus, were not in- 
troduced until some time afterwards, and then it was done 
very cautiously. These changes were made partly for the 
purpose of exalting the estimation of Christ above the ob- 
noxious idea, then prevalent, of his having been crucified 
as a malefactor, the ignominy of which was a great ob- 
stacle to the conversion of the Jews and Gentiles. It was 
effected to overcome their adamantine prejudices. Before 
the council of Nice, in the fourth century, supremacy was 
always ascribed to the Father; and even Justin Martyr 
himself declared Jesus to be " subordinate to him, and a 
minister to his will." With regard to the Holy Spirit, 
the apostolic Fathers seem to have considered it a power 
rather than a person. And Justin Martyr says, " we 
place the Son in the second place, and the prophetic 
Spirit in the third." The New Testament informs us, 
that the Holy Spirit is the Comforter, [John xiv., 26, J and 
the Comforter is the spirit of truth. — [John xv., 26.] The 
original Greek " paracletos" is translated " the Comfort- 
er " in one place, [John xiv., 26.] and ''Advocate " in 
another. — [I. John ii., 1.] This Advocate is pronounced 
to be Jesus Christ. It was with great difficulty that this 
doctrine was received by the primitive Christians; and it 
has never been received by believers universally, since 
that time. Upon how frail foundation does it then rest! 

The whole tenor of Scripture being against it, and com- 
mon sense revolting at its absurdity, let each judge for 
himself whether it be worthy of admission as an article of 
rational belief. 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 17 



ORIGINAL DEPRAVITY 



Implies an absolute falsity, viz., the injustice and cor- 
ruption of God! For if he create man depraved, (and it 
must be so, unless he is created pure,) by nature, HE 
must also be wofully depraved. To this no reasonable 
being will subscribe. It is a gross libel on the author of 
the human race. Man has many faculties, — reason, judg- 
ment, will, and various passions. In the common estima- 
tion, he is liable to pervert them all. He may abuse 
them; but, he cannot, if he would, extinguish every spark 
of goodness infused by his Maker into his constitution. 
The good will always finally prevail over the bad. He 
cannot be totally corrupt. This is contrary to the moral 
law. The observed inclination of humanity to divest itself 
of the artificial and uneasy shackles of fashionable society, 
and to seek nature's standard, gives this dogma the sem- 
blance of a basis. 

The exercise of benevolence among men gives the lie 
direct to this atrocious doctrine. Some may be relatively 
worse than others; but, there are none without certain 
redeeming qualities. Again, — the existence of moral and 
physical laws, and the requirement of man to obey them, 
presuppose his capability of obedience. And this annihi- 
lates the abominable dogma; for, if he were invariably in- 
clined to evil, and unable to obey, those laws would be in- 
applicable to him, and would not only prove a superfluity 
in nature, but an unpardonable oversight or obtuseness in 
their legislator. Once more, — its reference back to the 
first progenitor's transgression, is inconsistent; for, if 
Adam became corrupt from a perfect man, such as are ac- 
2 



18 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J 

tually born so bear no analogy to him, since, according to 
this position, they never were perfect. And the idea of a per- 
fect being having become imperfect, would lead us to sus- 
pect that the originator himself might also become imper- 
fect, which is inadmissible. Besides, it looks too much 
like a victory of evil over the Author of all good. And 
again, — we are told by Christ that " a good tree cannot 
produce evil fruit." [Matth. vii., 18.] Thus does it en- 
counter insuperable difficulties on its very threshhold, and 
render itself unworthy of adoption. 

This doctrine was not always entertained. Its birth 
may be dated near the close of the fourth century. It is 
an inference unwarranted by the premises. When it was 
found to clash with the idea of moral responsibility, its 
advocates must either abandon it altogether, or fabricate 
another error to effect an apparent compatibility. They 
resorted to its antagonist 



GRACE; 



Which was to counteract its effects;, and therefore, 
must be arbitrary ; for, if man had no merit in himselt, 
was radically corrupt, always predisposed to transgres- 
sion, grace, if bestowed at all, must be without regard to 
conduct. Instead of being understood as an inseparable 
ally of virtue, and an entire stranger to vice, as a quality 
interwoven with nature itself, as the favor of God towards 
good deeds and intentions alone, they made it indiscrim- 
inate, thereby accusing their Maker of confounding the 
immutable distinctions and consequences of right and 
wrong. They represented it as a commodity to be poured 
out en masse. But, discerning that this course would in- 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 



19 



elude all the human race, and would save the assassin as 
well as the saint, they adopted the subterfuge of 



ELECTION; 



Declaring that the great Searcher of hearts would 
rectify the dispensation of his favor, and bestow it only 
upon a few. These would, through this divine assistance, 
be enabled to choose between good and evil, and incline 
to the former; a performance of which would secure 
their salvation. However, it appeared a little too exclu- 
sive, involving the partiality of Heaven, and a remedy 
was proposed — the exercise of 



PUBLIC PRAYER. 



Upon the efficacy of this, they almost solely relied. It 
was the talisman of the believ^, the passport to the throne 
of favor. To be of the elect, was their earnest solicita- 
tion. Instead of regarding it as a natural aspiration of 
the soul to its Creator, and as a means to restore a per- 
verted mind to the contemplation of the Almighty, and 
thereby to improve the feelings, they viewed it as a hver 
wherewith they^ might change the Omniscient. No mat- 
ter for what they prayed, so long as they prayed fervently. 
Hence, they launched into all manner of inconsistencies, 
imploring Omnipotence for the most trivial, the most ab- 
surd, the most wicked gifts; indeed, every foolish wish 
that entered their hearts, must be asked without respect 
to reason or to their fellow-men. Their very tone, so 
2* 



20 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J 

whining and unnatural, betrayed a sanctified hypocrisy, 
■ — made for effect upon their deluded hearers, as if it were 
by the lips and voice instead of the heart, that they were 
to approach God, and that none but themselves were per- 
mitted! Having lost confidence in their own powers of 
amelioration, and believing themselves to be immeas- 
urably sinful, their .misguided zeal prompted them to pour 
forth the most fulsome flattery, and to pray for showers of 
grace. But how could the prayers of the radically cor- 
rupt avail? All could not be the elect; some must be 
excluded; "many are called, but few chosen;" (Mat- 
thew, xx., 16;) how could the prayers of the excluded be 
aught but imprecations? and if effectual, answered with 
curses? How was it possible for a pure thought to em- 
anate from an evil heart? And if not, how could they im- 
portune for any thing else than curses? These were for- 
midable difficulties, and for their removal was demanded 



REGENERATION, 



Or a being born again ; # and this at the outset presented 
another obstacle ; because a person restored to his primitive 
state, was but a repetition of the same idea ; for, in what did 
his prior corruption differ from his present? Had the true 
doctrine, that we are the creatures of God, the Author of 
nature itself, and consequently born pure but liable to 
perversion, been cherished, there would have Jpeen no 
need of all those artificial shifts and evasions. They 
would have understood by regeneration, a return to the 
standard of nature, to the purity of infants, from which 
we had departed. But, no; they must yield reason to su- 
perstition: one doctrine must support the other. And it 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 21 

is worthy of notice, how every individual one of them 
must be perverted to sustain each other! For instance — 
the parents of a child, long before its birth, had been 
thoroughly regenerated; the plague-spot of innate sin 
had been eradicated thereby; their souls had become 
pure; they are of the elect; and yet their offspring is 
tainted with the natural impurity! Whence did it origi- 
nate? To avoid the blasphemous libel implicated in the 
answer, the doctrine must be perverted. This calls loudly 
for 



BAPTISM, 



That the child may be immediately immersed, as its 
parents had been, and that process would certainly wash 
away the sin; since the water was supposed to have a 
sanctifying virtue. This ceremony was instituted before 
Christ's ministry commenced; and was practised by John, 
who baptized his followers to repentance. The apostles 
(Acts xix., 5, and Rom. vi., 3,) baptized in the name of 
Jesus Christ, and it was a symbol of the profession of 
Christianity, in like manner as was tfce participation of 
the ^Lord's Supper, which was assumed as the next step 
towards rooting out the original stain; for, as the water 
had performed its duty externally, so was it thought the 
body and blood of Christ, being introduced, finished the 
work within. Thus were these two beautiful and signify 
cant memorials soon perverted by the bigoted adherents of 
the Church. 

Such a sanctity has the lapse of centuries left brooding 
over these rites, that their original design is enveloped in 
mysticism. Then, a person must believe, previously to 
his baptism, which was a symbolic declaration of that be- 



22 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE*, 

lief; now, an infant, who cannot distinguish a Bible from 
any other book, nor the difference between the Mahome- 
tan and the Christian religions, is baptized and christened, 
both at once. Then, the boasting Peter, the unbelieving 
Thomas, and the perfidious Judas, could partake of the 
bread and wine with the rest of the disciples; now, only 
the righteous are admitted, unless, perchance, a vile one 
stealthily slip in. But, we see no performance of the 
ceremony alluded to by John, (xiii., 5 — 17,) — the wash- 
ing of feet by one another, concerning which Jesus thus 
clearly spoke: " Ye ought to wash one another's feet, for, 
I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have 
done to you." To test the regard entertained by some for 
the Saviour's example, let a tattered beggar, — a sincere 
believer in Christ, — apply to a wealthy preacher, and ask 
him to wash his feet for him! Every one can imagine the 
scene. So that, in this matter, we have gone to the op- 
posite extreme: instead of making additions thereto, we 
have blotted it out altogether. We have adopted the 
borrowed rite of baptism, and the modified Paschal Sup- 
per, and excluded the only original rite recommended by 
him! 

Notwithstanding all these doctrines, that of man's free 
agency remains, in their view, unrestored. According 
to their correct tenor, it was never obliterated. The very 
advocates of them, in their perverted form, do not directly 
deny human freedom of choice; and yet their perverted 
application abolishes it. And the strongest argument of 
these advocates consists in their determined and obstinate 
inclination to pervert. They live up to their doctrine, 
and are so far consistent. Indeed, a thousand errors, if 
they superficially support each other, can never make a 
right; and false premises must always involve wrong con- 
clusions. So that, when a known truth evidently wars 
with any number of declarations, or methods of reason- 
ing, or the reasons themselves, it thereby demonstrates 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 23 

their incorrectness, and will finally put them to flight. 
But, they perceived the tendency of these views as being 
a bar to moral choice; and without venturing, thinking, 
or wishing to probe the soundness of the views them- 
selves, they capped the climax ol absurdity, by dragging 
forward as a scape-goat for their errors, the dogma of 



VICARIOUS ATONEMENT. 



A dogma so unreasonable that, if applied in the daily 
transactions of life, it would be universally reprobated* — 
so selfish, that even brazen-faced avarice would blush at 
its enforcement, — so repugnant to nature, that humanity, 
sinful as it is represented to be, revolts at it, — so libel- 
lous to Gpd, that it distorts the features of his divine 
character. To the industrious dissemination of such 
principles, is the community partially indebted for the 
knavery perpetrated under the cover of our bankrupt laws 
— that creditors should bear the burdens of debtors, or 
that one should suffer for another's fault. By it, men are 
taught to consider a certificate of discharge an indisputa- 
ble proof of the satisfaction, the cancelment, and absolu- 
tion of their demands — of a release from all their moral 
obligation. A superficial and general adoption of these 
creates a species of morbid public opinion, to which un- 
biassed private opinion is in deadly hostility. FrQm the 
same it would also follow that, if a criminal, in the present 
life, could lay his thefts and murders upon another, so 
that himself might escape the penalty of the law, he would 
be likely to be more reckless than he now is. But, who 
propagate such abhorrent sentiments? And appeal to 
the word of God for their assumed authority? These need 
no written answer. 



24 THE THEOLOGICAL BRE-HIVE; 

Are not these teachers ashamed of their reprehensible 
conduct? ashamed of their inordinate selfishness? Not 
only are they professedly willing, yea, desirous, but even 
exceedingly rejoiced, to cast their sins upon another, upon 
one ivithout sin! It seems they care not who endures the 
load, nor how unjustly, provided they can exonerate them- 
selves: — supreme selfishness! They are guilty of the same 
which they so lustily impute to the executioners of Christ; 
and thereby even nullify the effect of the very doctrine 
preached, making themselves equally culpable with their 
predecessors! Dr. Webster accuses the age of desiring 
to throw all the undoubted wonders of the sixteenth and 
seventeenth centuries, such as witchcraft, &c, on the 
Devil's back.^ Some of our preachers go beyond this, 
and wish to throw the sins of the whole world on the back 
of their Saviour. No one, with reason, would dream of 
so mean an evasion of moral accountability. It wages 
war against nature, and impeaches the divine government. 
A lively sense of individual personal responsibility for each 
one's deeds would tend to make mankind more cautious of 
their daily conduct, public and private, as they are, under 
the laws of society. Away with such abhorrent ideas! 
Come forward, mortals, and meet the consequences of 
your actions like men. Examine for yourselves: be inde- 
pendent. Be not terrified with the pusillanimity of child- 
ren at the imaginary sight of a phantom, conjured up by 
an interested and deluded order! Call them to account; 
they are amenable to you for the unnecessary, unmerited 
inflictions they impose on you; and you are partially re- 
sponsible for your credulity. What better judgment have 
they, to determine whether an opinion be reasonable or 
unreasonable ? Did not the same God endow you with 
powers of discrimination between right and wrong? Has 
he dealt out to them the exclusive monopoly? Whose but 

* Scott's Demonology and Witchcraft, (Harper's edition) p. 168. 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 25 

your own interests are involved in your own decisions? A 
subserviency to the superstitious products of the heated 
brains of others will always scourge the mind into cow- 
ardice. It is a punishment of your indolence of thought. 
Think, determine, act for yourselves! 

Why is it, if all our sins and their punishment were 
borne by Christ, if he absolved the world from guilt, if he 
removed the curse alleged to have been entailed on the 
human race by Adam, and restored us to the primeval pu- 
rity of the first being, — why is it that remorse now attends 
our every misdemeanor? Why are the Jews said to be 
yet under the curse of heaven? Why such direct contra- 
dictions from the pulpit, still insisting upon the need of 
reformation? For, if all became transgressors through 
Adam's delinquency, all must have become renovated by 
Christ's merits; since the former depended not upon us, 
so neither could the other. If one was a foreign influ- 
ence, so must be the other. Experience, however, abso- 
lutely denies it; and assures us that we are accountable 
for our misdeeds. In the economy of nature, a broken 
limb immediately causes pain; and a radical sin occa- 
sions immediate remorse. We cannot avoid the conse- 
quences of sin, if we would. He may have apparently 
died by means of sins, as a victim; but not as an expiator; 
besides, he asked their forgiveness of his Father. 

This doctrine of atonement has been fabricated and fraud- 
ulently foisted in among us, by men no better capable of 
judging of its correctness than ourselves. Age may in- 
crease its superficial sanctity, but it cannot add to its truth. 
The artificial sanctity may awe us against an investigation ; 
but, a moral truth demonstrable or intuitively perceptible 
two thousand years or an eternity ago, is so now; and no 
truth shrinks from scrutiny. Error and falsehood only 
shun the light. It is then our duty to " test all things, 
and to adhere to the true." 

And, indeed, it contains the seeds of its own destruc- 



26 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE*, 

tion, — the mark of its own condemnation. Sin has ap- 
peared in the world by means of a guilty person, and it 
must be removed by an innocent and virtuous one. One 
phase of this sin is murder; another, injustice; a third, 
cruelty; and all three are involved in the doctrine of atone- 
ment: that is, to eradicate one original evil, another must 
be perpetrated; and who atones for this new one? Cer- 
tainly, Christ cannot have atoned in advance; or he would 
have done it before the first introduction of evil. If an 
innocent person, under this view, is punished by God 
with intense agony for the errors of criminals, what de- 
gree of punishment will be inflicted on a criminal himself? 
If none, it is unjust. If any, its efficacy has failed. If 
men could have improved without it, wherein is its utility? 
If they could not, they certainly were not accountable; 
and in what has it altered their condition? If it still be 
urged they were accountable, why delay the atonement 
so many years, and allow myriads of ancient souls to 
writhe in painful punishment? Why exhibit partiality to 
their successors? Again: if a knowledge and belief are 
not requisite, then we yet insist the ancients were not 
responsible. If they are, why suffer so many centuries 
to elapse before its universal promulgation? Why not 
stamp it with the convincing simplicity of a mathematical 
axiom, and let them have the benefit of an atonement, 
which proves itself to be not an atonement? 

Another contradiction involved in it is, that a sinful act 
is rewarded as well as a good one, making no distinction 
between their effects. This, with the absurdity that the 
sacrifice was made by God to himself or to the Devil, one 
of which must have been,' to verify the doctrine, seals its 
condemnation; and invites us to the true ground, that an 
exemplary life of practical benevolence and integrity will 
be as instrumental in securing our happiness as it was 
in securing Christ's; that a deviation will encounter its 
legitimate consequences; that the principles of morality 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 27 

cannot be affected by time, place, or circumstance; nor 
can the penalty of their infraction or disregard be evaded 
or erased. Hence, all the atonement effected, consisted 
in a lucid development and efficient inculcation by precept 
and example of these principles among mankind, as the 
leaven introduced into a mass of bread, which bf its own 
innate recommendation and energy will improve them, re- 
storing each one to the standard^of nature, to the purity 
of a little child, from which he may have more or less di- 
gressed; and the nearer they return thither, the more ac- 
curately will they conform to those laws by which the 
Universe is governed. 

The dogma of vicarious atonement presupposes the di- 
vinity of Jesus, original depravity of God and man, arbi- 
trary grace, and other theological phantasms, all incon- 
sistent with reason and with themselves. System alone 
keeps them together and alive; for, if separated, they 
would fall by their own weight; and the very doctrine of 
vicarious atonement, or the dependence of one upon an- 
other to be burdened by his faults, is indispensable to their 
individual existence. Even if it were said to presuppose 
the humanity of Jesus, it would be marked with some self- 
ish end in view; for, selfishness is inseparable from hu- 
manity. And that would vitiate all the disinterested gen- 
erosity claimed for it. 

From this irrational position, that God suffered an inno- 
cent and virtuous being to endure punishment for trans- 
gressors, flows the inevitable conclusion, that real offen- 
ders are to be punished in a much greater degree, or not 
at all; and it gives countenance to another irrational 
idea, that of Endless Misery, 



28 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 



ENDLESS MISERY. 



This harmonizes with the blasphemously implied mal- 
ice of the Creator, and conflicts with his obvious good- 
ness and justice. It disregards the true nature of punish- 
ment, — a means employed to reform the offender, and to 
correct the offence, — and inflicts wretchedness when there 
can be no possible benefit derivable therefrom. By man's 
wanderings, the infinite happiness of God cannot be dis- 
turbed: neither can his punishment gratify the infinite 
goodness. No utility can result from such a rigid admin- 
istration; and we believe that God has established no in- 
utility, unless we impeach his wisdom. .As to the often 
urged inscrutability of the ways of Divine Providence, in 
this matter nothing incomprehensible was ever designed 
for man, though it may have been by man. It even ac- 
cuses the Almighty of having vainly endeavored, by freely 
bestowing his grace, and dooming a sinless being to an- 
guish as a substitute for our sins and their consequent 
punishment, to accomplish what he had in his omniscient 
view; of having applied a remedy without removing the 
disease and pain, — of encountering a complete failure. 

Instead of this, how much more reasonable is the doc- 
trine of individual moral responsibility, — of the suprem- 
acy of virtue over vice, of truth over error, — and the final 
conquest of eternal, universal right, over transient, par- 
tial, ever-fading iniquity! That penalties are the bea- 
cons stationed along the path of life to aid us in our 
straight passage, is evident to every careful observer. 
These are attendant on the slightest deviations, in like 
manner as are satisfactions concomitant to a direct course. 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 29 

For, nature is as prompt in her payments as she is in her 
demands, or there would be an anomaly. Diseases are 
penalties annexed to violation, and though they prey ex- 
ternally on the body, the soul feels them, and it is the 
soul that transgresses. They are a part of her economy. 
Hence we cannot but conclude that finally every vestige 
of error will be obliterated by the triumphant omnipotence 
of truth, and that never-ceasing", never-diminishing hap- 
piness will swallow transitory misery, and reign with un- 
disputed authority, through eternity and throughout the 
Universe. 

Such erroneous views have been and are now strenu- 
ously maintained, notwithstanding their palpable incon- 
sistencies. The multitude have been accustomed to hear 
what their teachers were disposed to utter, and to repose 
the most unsuspecting confidence in their arrogated infal- 
libility of investigation. They have deemed it either a 
mark of disrespect or a species of sacrilege to doubt the 
assertions of those, whom they supposed to be pre-emi- 
nently qualified to search for the truth. Those teachers 
have been invested or protected by a wall of religious 
awe; and their hearers have received the instructions 
with child-like simplicity. Experience daily proved that 
they were liable to err in the other transactions of life; 
and that themselves, though the most expert in their va- 
rious vocations, were likewise liable to mistake even in 
matters with which they were considered to be thoroughly 
acquainted; and yet, the false halo surrounding these 
spiritual teachers was so dazzling, that they could not find 
heart to doubt their judgments, their sentiments, or their 
declarations. Hence have mankind labored under great 
delusions, relying too much on hearsay, and on the opin- 
ions of others. It is a penalty annexed to the violation of 
that law, which enjoins each to think and to act for himself 
It moreover demonstrates our former position of responsi- 
bility. 



30 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 

But, for the honor of man and his regard for his Maker's 
bestowment of adequate faculties, some have asserted and 
exercised the right of investigating for themselves. And 
the reward has accompanied the discharge of their duty. 
They have stripped off the assumed mask, demonstrated 
the injustice of implicit faith, proved that the defect of hu- 
man judgment is principally attributable to this subjugation 
of mind to others' dictates and tenets, and to its neglect of 
exercise and discipline: they have shown that their super- 
intendents were subject to the same delusion from the 
same cause; have detected the false principles so indus- 
triously circulated and generally adopted; and have ex- 
posed the fallacy of their arguments, and the obliquities 
of their venerated judgments. They have boldly an- 
nounced to an enchained world, that God holds nothing 
sacred that is not reasonable and true; and that whatever 
superstitious sanctity has been attached to such doctrines, 
has been through the instrumentality of indolent credulity. 
They clearly evidence that a man of a well-disciplined 
mind is a more accurate judge of truth than his untutored 
companion; that he has a clearer sense of God's design. 
To men of this active character, of this noble indepen- 
dence, are we greatly indebted for the explosion of so many 
unwarrantable dogmas, — dogmas too radically defective in 
a very essential particular, to stamp them with divinity, — 
defective in positive utility, without which property we 
believe nothing was ever directly created by Jehovah. 
And we likewise believe that, in any thing so materially 
concerning or affecting us, indubitable marks of its utility 
or inutility are perceptible simultaneously with the object 
itself. 

The abandonment of these notions forcibly argues can- 
dor in being willing to eradicate every error which may 
be designated, whether by Unbeliever or Christian: and 
the same degree of candor, however repugnant to the 
bigot, must admit them to be trophies of unbelief; for, 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 31 

unbelievers launched their shafts at the Bible as contain- 
ing absurdities too glaring and too gross to be for a 
moment entertained as divine. And, sure enough, manly 
investigation has discovered their baseless condition. The 
examiner has indeed been warned by his more devoted 
brother not to profane sacred doctrines by suspicious scru- 
tiny; he has been admonished of the awful danger attend- 
ing such an enterprise ; and has been repeatedly and 
loudly reminded of his proneness to be misled. But not 
an allusion has the pious herald made to his own possible 
liability to deception. Notwithstanding these severe ad- 
monitions, he has bravely persevered through the storm, 
regardless of itsimpotent rage. We hope that the inves- 
tigation will be continued by these high-minded pioneers 
—and that their efforts will be justly appreciated. We 
hope that, as heretofore, they will topple down one pinna- 
cle after another, until every irrationality shall be plucked 
from our religious soil, — until every gilded spire of error 
be prostrated and demolished. We are glad to behold 
arbitrators between the corruptions of Christianity and 
unbelief; arbitrators who can have no other than an equal 
interest with their professedly pious neighbors in the 
welfare of themselves and of humanity, — and whose fac- 
ulties and means are as ample as theirs; for, we think the 
unbeliever and the Christian are in pursuit of the same 
object, — HAPPINESS. 

Men are apt to consider it impossible to be content in 
any other circumstances than those in which they have 
lived for years. They become so wonted to their con- 
dition, that it is often difficult to convince them of the 
possibility of improvement; and necessity is frequently 
requisite to induce them to a trial. And so prepossessed 
are they sometimes, and so prone to a continual recurrence 
to their delegated ideas, that experience itself will not 
always rivet the conviction. It was thus w r ith the Ameri- 
can patriots. They had been living under a king, and 



32 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J 

many doubted the capacity of themselves to administer 
their own government. And the project was long debated, 
and strenuously opposed, — even though they were at the 
same time fiercely goaded on towards it by their tyrants, 
before they could conclude to adopt it; and then, some 
advocated the crown. Thus was it with the Protestant 
reformers. Religion had been so long entrusted to, and 
doled out by the Catholic Church, and men had become 
so subservient to the usurped infallibility, that it cost much 
effort to muster courage sufficient for the change. So 
also was it with the Polytheistic Pagans. The innovation 
of the unity of God was regarded with little complaisance 
— and its preachers were viewed as criminals. In all these 
instances, the more liberal, those whom the royal family 
in the one case, and the priesthood in the other, had not 
effectually and entirely stupefied, turned their ear to reason 
— and though they knew the commencement of the experi- 
ment would be evidently attended with obstinate difficulties 
— difficulties flowing rather from the old notions than from 
the new, — their confidence in the practical operation of a 
rational plan actuated them to try it. In like manner was 
it with those who formerly hugged as gods to their hearts 
the corruptions above mentioned, and who now have be- 
come persuaded of their falsity. They had to contend 
with the cry of " Great is Diana of the Ephesians!" 
vociferated by the craftsmen: they were obliged to strug- 
gle against opinions that had been their idols, enshrined 
within from their infancy; they had to combat their pride 
of self-cherished ideas. It was in fact deemed impossible 
by them, so earnestly and solemnly had they been assured 
of it, and so servilely did they proffer credence to their 
teachers, to enjoy happiness without those dogmas. But 
truth was too honest, reason was too powerful, for even 
established error; and they were compelled to confess 
their former delusion, while conviction prompted them to 
embrace their antagonists' salutary doctrines. It was a 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 33 

homage paid by deception to integrity, justice, and virtue. 
Never have they, in their right mind, regretted the choice. 
This leads us to consider the 



RESPONSIBILITY OF BELIEVERS. 



Much has been said, written, and preached concerning 
the responsibility of unbelievers: many denunciations have 
been thundered against them for their incredulity, and 
many Scriptural passages have been arrayed to their utter 
condemnation. But, are clerical believers totally irrespon- 
sible? Are they wholly free from moral accountability? 
We think not. In very many respects are they reprehensi- 
ble. In 'truth, they are doubly accountable, — to God and 
to man. 

They have gained the confidence of their auditors, and 
they are under indissoluble obligations not to abuse it. 
They hold themselves out as authorized expounders of 
the Bible, and it is due from them to expound it correctly. 
They profess to be possessed of all the means to warrant 
a true knowledge of the Holy Book; and it becomes them 
to obtain an accurate knowledge of the same. If they be- 
tray this trust, by adopting, without patient examination, 
the creeds of predecessors or contemporaries, they are 
justly and fairly deserving of rebuke. It becomes them, 
above all, to be candid ancl honest, by publishing any dis- 
covered defects within the ran£[e of their observation: — 
and they are bound to bring such within their reach. For 
a wrong exposition and its bad effects, no one is account- 
able but themselves. 

They are responsible to God for all wilful misrepresen- 
tations of his policy towards man, and of his revelations 
to him. If it has been done through a misguided zeal, 
they are responsible for yielding the mastery; if through 
3 



34 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J 

ignorance, they should either cease profession or inform 
themselves; if through superstitious reverence for old 
opinions, they are answerable for an abuse of reason; if 
through want of candor, they are absolutely culpable. 
They are responsible for their creed. The question is 
not so much whether they simply believe* as what they 
believe. If a man believes fire will not burn him, he will 
act in accordance with his belief, and get burned, — or be 
condemned by the influence of that belief. If he believes 
it will burn him, he will be saved. So that a believer who 
does not believe aright, is responsible for that belief. 

They are responsible to man for wrong instruction and 
its consequences; for the evil tendency and its baleful 
influences on society. They are responsible for the very 
denunciation they hurl at the unbeliever; for, they had 
forfeited his confidence by claiming a privilege to explain 
the Scriptures, and then failing to do it in a proper manner, 
but pertinaciously adhering to, and promulgating injurious 
tenets: they who should have been actuated by one mind, 
one interest, one feeling, have undeniably proved their 
contrariety, totally unwarranted by the principles of Chris* 
tianity, by being unanimous in only one thing — disagree- 
ment. Those denunciations are more applicable at home. 
They are responsible for their betrayal of confidence, and 
for seducing man to compromise his reason to them. They 
are more responsible to the people than any other public 
servants, inasmuch as the trust committed to them is of 
greater importance. They are responsible for allowing a 
predominancy to sectarian prejudice, as well as for sec- 
tarianism itself, refusing to hear truth because they affect 
to believe the source to be evil; when, on the contrary, 
it becomes them to listen before they condemn: and finally, 
they are responsible for not having spread Christianity 
over the whole world. 

We would by no means shield the incorrect sentiments 
of unbelievers; but, we would have believers exercise a 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 35 

little more charity, especially when our religion is based 
upon it; and when we are so liable for misconduct, who 
ought to be models for imitation. They can furnish to 
our reproach many brilliant samples of integrity and vir- 
tue, of benevolence and charity. It is our duty, then, to 
regard our own responsibilities before we attempt to at- 
tack theirs; lest a comparison of our deserts be found to 
exhibit us in an uncomfortable light, and we be proved 
guilty of so misconstruing and incorporating such errors 
with our views of the Bible as to make it really too un- 
reasonable to be received as a divine revelation. 

Most of the doctrines thus far enumerated have been 
maintained for a long series of years, and have had many 
able advocates; but, we have seen that no number of ages 
or advocates can alter the nature of a fact, or prove an 
error to be true. Among the rest, has been urged that of 
the 



RESURRECTION. 



A belief in this alleged event is recommended to the 
adoption of all mankind; and it is the duty of each to in- 
quire into its reality, just as much so in the present cen- 
tury, as it was at the first establishment of Christianity. 
If it be true that any one has ever arisen from a dead 
state, it must have been effected by the eternal Author of 
Nature; and eternal proofs will of course attend it to the 
end of time. These proofs, if designed for the conviction 
of man, are intelligible to him, and will demonstrate, with- 
out a reasonable doubt, the indisputability of the fact, will 
unqualifiedly establish its absolute certainty. And sinc& 
.the event is of the same moment to us, as it was to the 
primitive apostles, we are entitled to the same strength of 

evidence as they. It should also bear the tests, unavoid- 

3* 



36 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 

ably connected with God's works. For, if we find it not 
in unison with nature, according to our rational and sober 
ideas of the same, we cannot conceive of it according to 
our ideas of the character of Deity. And, if we have 
wrong ideas of him, we may cherish the same concerning 
this event. But, our more earnest brethren are liable to 
a similar defect. We ask only the identical privilege 
claimed by them, — that of examination. It then becomes 
us to judge from all the circumstances within our cog- 
nizance, whether it is probable that it did actually occur. 
The tests we shall now consider, reserving the proofs for 
a subsequent opportunity. 

What is its positive utility? The moral government of 
God is administered according to the immutable princi- 
ples of virtue. An obedience to them is attended with 
happiness; a deviation, with corresponding discomfort. 
Man's constitution prompts him to seek the former and to 
avoid the latter. This constitution was established by his 
Maker, and evidently conforms to the standard for which 
it was designed. Even* if admitted, — the mere fact that 
Christ's body was raised by God, — we cannot imagine 
how it can prove a general resurrection any better than 
that of the widow's son, or that of Lazarus, if they ac- 
tually occurred; and still less how it can be an earnest of 
such a resurrection as is described in the first Epistle to 
the Corinthians, (chap, xv.,) that of a spiritual body: for, 
according to Luke, (chap, xxiv., 42, 43,) he partook of 
" broiled fish and of an honeycomb," — both corruptible 
articles, and this, too, after the alleged resurrection. A 
being " raised in incorrupt-ion" ( I Cor. xv., 42,) rather 
conflicts with this notion. Again: if Christ was superior to 
other men, differently constituted, the inference is still more 
unwarrantable. For we might with the same propriety ar- 
gue from the premises of an ordinary man's resurrection,- 
that the inferior animals will therefore be raised, which advo- 
cacy would subject us to ridicule. The one can certainly 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 37 

be no more expected to follow from the other, than that, 
because Christ was miraculously conceived, every body 
else will be. Neither can we divine how it can establish 
any thing more than so far as it concerned his body alone. 
It can certainly be no proof that another will rise, — only 
that he may rise; and Lazarus established the same, if 
his was bona fide. So also did the " many bodies of saints 
that came out of the graves after the resurrection," 
(Matt, xxvii., 53,) and not at his crucifixion, as many have 
the impression. And if it certified the resurrection of an- 
other, or of all, or of an incorruptible body, or the three 
combined, which it evidently does not, what effect, in itself 
considered, could it have on the fundamental principles of 
morality? It is of itself an extraneous circumstance and 
indifferent to those principles; and can neither verify nor 
falsify, confirm nor invalidate them, in any possible de- 
gree. Conduct in consonance with them was productive 
of as much mental tranquillity before as after the event; 
and that in conflict with them was equally as culpable 
and unhappy previously as subsequently. What utility 
does it evince in this respect? 

Of what utility was it in preaching ? It could claim no 
necessary connection with death; for, a person might 
come from the tomb without life having been totally ex- 
tinct. He may have arisen from among dead men; or, 
as translated, " from the dead;" but it does not prove that 
he rose from a dead state, — that he was a re- animated 
corpse, which is altogether different. Preaching on that 
point then, could only legitimately consist in asserting the 
fact of a resurrection. This was what Paul intended when 
he said, 6i if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching, 
(or proclamation of the fact) vain; and your faith is also 
vain, and we are found false witnesses of God." (1 Cor. xv., 
14, 15.) He meant their belief (in this event) had no sub- 
stantial foundation. They could indeed be false witnesses 
very innocently, very conscientiously, if they sincerely be- 



38 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 

lieved it, and had employed all the means within their 
reach to investigate its truth. Belief, however, as we 
have said before, is not absolute knowledge. But, their 
permanent interest was only in the obedience of the moral 
laws; and this fact of a resurrection was neither a moral 
law nor a moral precept. They could have received a 
moral truth as easily without as with the fact, whether 
Paul or any other individual preached it. The preaching 
then of morality could not be essentially affected; and 
doctrines in collision with this, could not be of any prac- 
tical utility. But, it may be said to have been instrumen- 
tal in disseminating those vital principles, in giving 
Christianity a start, in establishing the system. So also 
has it on the other hand been used as a cloak to sanction 
all the corruptions of Christianity. It is appealed to by 
the advocates of these corruptions with the same perti- 
nacity that was manifested by Paul in maintaining the 
fact; it has given them a start; and upon it, the preachers 
have erected a system totally different from the original 
intent, and exiled reason is finally obliged to rally to the 
rescue. If the doctrines preached had been restricted to 
the weight of their own intrinsic merit, we should be quite 
as well circumstanced; for, the bad will always eventually 
be defeated. It requires one error or more to support 
another; truth declines enlisting in such a cause, and is 
ever competent to sustain itself. Strike a fair balance, 
and wherein is its utility in preaching ? 

As to general assurance, of what utility is it? If it 
establishes aught, it establishes only the resurrection of 
the body, not the immortality of the soul. And the gen- 
erally received evidence merely warrants an existence of 
forty days. Now, the Pharisees, (and Paul was one. both 
prior and subsequently to his conversion,) (Acts xxvi., 5,) 
believed in a resurrection as well before as after the al- 
leged event. Has it inspired any one in our day with 
more than a hope of having an immortal body here- 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 39 

after? Who is certain of it? Urge what you may, the 
doctrine of immortal mind remains unchanged, though not 
taught as above: so also does the doctrine of a mortal 
body. The enthusiastic Paul may have believed in an im- 
mortal body, — that he, with others, should be taken cor- 
porally'into the air before death; others may have be- 
lieved it; but, generally, the faith in that respect is not so 
strong as in that of the soul, and if God's marks were im- 
pressed upon it, it would be. 

Again: — is the actual occurrence of an event indispen- 
sable to insure general belief of the fact? Daily expe- 
rience proves that it is not. Very many articles of belief 
are based on hearsay, on mere rumor. Belief indeed is 
contagious, and becomes so by our custom to rely too 
much on vague report, especially if such report meets our 
approbation or pleases our self-interest. Hence, it may 
exist without any substantial foundation. And the belief 
is as efficient and actuating as if the fact had really oc- 
curred. It will exercise the same influence. We apply 
this to the resurrection. Whether that event transpired 
or not, is immaterial with believers that it did, and with 
unbelievers that it did not. Their actions will be gov- 
erned by the belief, not by the transaction. In what then 
has it availed, in these respects, supposing it were true? 

Since, therefore, we cannot perceive any positive utility 
in such an event, and since we are certain that such would 
be clear as noon-day to those, whose only interest is con- 
cerned therein, if it were an act of God, and designed to 
secure our belief, it follows that we cannot reasonably ac- 
cord to it more than a slight probability. And we learn 
that it was doubted on the immediate threshhold, — first, by 
Thomas, (John xx., 25,) a primitive disciple, — then, by 
some. (Matth. xxviii., 17.) Besides, what evidence had 
they, after they were convinced? — for they were not con- 
vinced by being eye-witnesses of it, nor until after the al- 
leged fact. They may have firmly believed that Christ 



40 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 

died; and in consequence of that belief, his posterior ap- 
pearance may have persuaded them into a belief of an 
actual resurrection from a dead state; whereas, he may 
not have been dead, and may have only arisen from among 
dead men. And what evidence had Paul? He is said to 
have seen him alive after the resurrection. His firm belief 
in the absolute death, and his positive ocular evidence of 
his being alive subsequently, necessarily produced his con- 
viction of the really of the resurrection. Suppose we 
had precisely the same evidence, which we have not, 
would that establish the fact? It might win our assent, 
and that is all. And we here detect why we have not 
that identical evidence; — because, it is of no positive utili- 
ty; — it is not connected with a certainty of the death. It 
would be so connected — it would be positively useful, and 
we should have ail the evidence, if it were indisputably 
true. Indeed, there were no eye-witnesses of the resur- 
rection, unless the guards of the sepulchre were such, if 
we may credit the narration as containing a record of all 
the testimony. Their evidence was not much different 
from Paul's, if they were witnesses, for they only saw him 
— they did not even recognize him, as we are indirectly 
informed. 

Nothing has yet met our eye competent to elicit from us 
an admission of the fact. Examination rather invites us 
to abandon its supposition. It will hardly bear the applied 
test. And now, we will investigate the proofs in order, 
commencing first with the preliminary of 



THE TEIAL. 



At that time, Judea was a Roman province. Hence, 
the two different forms of trial, through which Jesus 
passed, — that by the Sanhedrim, or assembly of chief 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 41 

priests, scribes, and elders; and that by the people, ac- 
cording to a Roman custom. 

After Judas had designated him to the Jews by a kiss, 
as the individual whom they desired to capture, they took 
and bound him. They then led him away first to Annas. 
(John xviii., 13.) This was early on Friday morning. 
He sent him to Caiaphas. (John xviii., 24.) As soon as it 
was day, the elders of the people, and the chief priests, 
and the scribes came together, and led him into their 
council. (Luke xxii., 66.) There he was questioned con- 
cerning his disciples and his doctrines. (John xviii., 19.) 
He referred them to those who had heard him. (John xviii., 
21.) This occasioned a blow by one of the officers, as an in- 
sult to the high priest. (John xviii., 22.) Failing in their at- 
tempt to obtain direct answers from him, they are said to 
have sought for false witnesses, (Matt, xxvi., 59,) whose 
contradictory evidence nullified itself. At last two agreed in 
their statement, that he had said, "I am able to destroy 
the temple of God, and to build it in three days." (Matth. 
xxvi., 61,) This they considered an assumption of divine 
power, for he was then in the temple, (where he asserted, 
" Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it 
up," — John ii., 19,) and they supposed he meant that edi- 
fice. His silence (Mark xiv., 61) to the accusations was 
regarded by the chief priest as a contempt of court. 
" Answerest thou nothing?" (Mark xiv., 60,) said he, in 
some perturbation. " Art thou the Christ?" (Mark xiv., 61, 
and Luke xxii., 67.) " If I tell you, "said he, " ye will not 
believe: and if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor 
let me go; I am." (Luke xxii., 67, 68, and Mark xiv., 62.) 
The high priest pronounced it blasphemy; and they all con- 
demned him to be worthy of death. (Mark xiv., 62 — 64.) 
Then burst forth the Jewish rage. They spit in his face, 
and buffeted him, and smote him. After a consultation, 
(Mark xv., 1) " they led him away from Caiaphasto the hall 
of judgment," called the Proztorium. "And it was yet early" 



42 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J 

(John xviii., 28,) so that they must have hastened the ex- 
amination, and disregarded some of their usual customs. 
They perhaps deemed the emergency a sufficient apology 
for judicial irregularities, or desired to get througli before 
the people were aroused, before broad day. It seems that 
Caiaphas had previously prophesied that Jesus should die 
for that nation, (John xi., 51,) and that he " enjoyed the 
sacerdotal dignity during the whole course of Pilate's 
government in Judea; — for, he was advanced by Valerius 
Gracchus, Pilate's predecessor, and was divested of it by 
Vitellius, governor of Syria, after he had deposed Pilate 
from his procuratorship.* 

When Christ appeared before Pilate, he was under a 
sentence of condemnation by the council. They were 
bent upon his destruction; the governor interposed for his 
release. On examination, Pilate could find no cause for 
death, (Luke xxiii., 14,) but the priests vehemently accused 
him, to which he made no reply. Among the Romans, 
there were four kinds of trial; before the people, before 
inquisitors, before praetors, and before a jury. Christ ap- 
pears to have been subjected to the first kind. The citi- 
zens sometimes gave their votes at trials viva voce; and 
judgment was governed by their decision. Hence, we 
learn that, in this case, " the voices of the people and of 
the chief priests prevailed, and Pilate gave sentence " 
accordingly. (Luke xxiii., 23, 24.) It was conducted in a 
tumultuous mannner; they were lashed into a high degree 
of envy and excitement. We are told f that Coriolanus, 
a Roman senator, about B. C. 488, was tried for his life, 
and that the proceedings were irregular, and transacted 
with violence. J Some said that he was killed in the flower 
of his age; others that he lived to be a very old man. § 
His trial was also before the people. According to Xe- 

* Fleetwood's Life of Christ, p. 248. f Livy, Lib. II, c. xxxv. 
J Dionys. VII., c. xxxv hi, &c. $ Plutarch in vita Coriolani. — Note. 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 43 

nophon, Cyrus, King of the Persians, died peaceably in 
his bed; Strabo inclines to this opinion; Lucian makes 
him live beyond the age of an hundred years. Herodotus 
makes him fall in battle, after a reign of twenty-nine years, 
his head to be cut off and thrown into a vessel filled with 
human blood, by order of queen Tomyris, to avenge the 
death of her son killed by the Persians. (Herodotus, Vol. I., 
p. 170, and Note. Harpers' edition.) 

After Pilate had scourged Jesus, according to the Ro- 
man custom, he delivered him to the soldiers, who led him 
into the Prcetorium from the tribunal outside, and clothed 
him with a military cloak of a scarlet color, a garment 
sometimes worn by the chief officers of the army, — 
usually by the general.* [In a triumphal procession, the 
victorious army, horse and foot, came last, singing their 
general's praises, j" but occasionally throwing out railleries 
against him. J] As he had been accused of aspiring to the 
empire, the merry soldiers, in sport, put a crown of acan- 
thus on his head. When they had finished their frolic, 
Pilate brought him forth, protesting his belief in his inno- 
cence, and said to the Jews, M Behold the man! " The 
chief priests and officers immediately shouted " Crucify 
him! " After some farther similar manoeuvres, finding 
that his entreaties availed naught, Pilate gave him up to 
them, and they led him away (John xix., 16,) to the place 
of execution — Golgotha. This urges us to consider the 
mode of punishment practised at that time, — Crucifixion. 



# Liv. I., xxvi. f Livy, V., xlix. $ Suet. Jul, 49—51 ; Dion 
VII. . lxxii.; Martial, L, v., iii. 



44 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; 



THE CRUCIFIXION. 



In describing this severe infliction, which, we are in- 
formed by Plutarch, * was bestowed by the Macedonian 
general, more than three hundred years before Christ, on 
a physician, Glaucus, because Hephssstion, Alexander's 
intimate friend, died, — and which was common to the Per- 
sians, Carthaginians, and Romans, — we shall principally 
follow Jahn's Biblical Archceology.'\ 

When Darius took Babylon, (516 B. C.,) " he ordered 
three thousand of the most distinguished nobility to be 
crucified. "J It was inflicted by the Romans on servants 
who had perpetrated crimes, on robbers, assassins, and 
rebels, among which last Jesus was reckoned, on the 
ground of his making himself King, or Messiah. The 
Jews, in Christ's time, were subject to that people. Be- 
fore crucifixion, the person was scourged as a preliminary. 
The cross was usually about ten feet high. A piece of 
wood, projecting therefrom for him to sit upon, and the 
nails driven through the hands and feet, or a cord fasten- 
ing the hands to the transverse piece of the cross, — or 
both, were his supports. His body generally remained 
attached thereto till it became putrid; but in Judea, where 
Christ was crucified, it was buried on the same day, on ac- 
count of a Jewish law: (Deut. xxi., 22, 23,) l( And if a 
man have committed a sin worthy of death, and thou hang 
him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night upon the 
tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; that 
thy land be not defiled." In such cases he was suffocated 

* Plutarch's Life of Alexander, f Jahn's Bible Archaeology, 
p. 322 — 324, and Section 261, — octavo edition, by Upham. — 
t Herod. UL, clix. 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 45 

by the smoke of fire underneath, or destroyed by wild 
beasts, or his bones were broken by a mallet, to accel- 
erate his death. He usually survived till the third, and 
sometimes till the seventh day. 

We here perceive at least an intimation in one of the 
Books of Moses, said to have been written more than four- 
teen centuries before Jesus Christ, — ages before this 
people- were subject to the Romans, that the Jews under- 
stood the punishment of hanging on a tree. No mention 
is made by the evangelists that Christ was nailed to the 
cross by his feet. Nor do they assert that his hands were 
nailed: it is merely hinted, and that by only one of them, 
John. Before he was crucified, which means, fastened to 
the cross, Mark tells us (Mark xv., 23,) that ' c they gave 
him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received 
it not." This was a n^dicated preparation, designed as a 
kind of opiate, to blunt the nerves, and thereby diminish 
the pain. It was a customary potion to capital sufferers. 
While he was crucified, and said, (John xix., 28 — 30,) " I 
thirst," one of the soldiers immediately ran, and brought 
to him some sour wine and water, a common beverage in 
their army, called Posca. This he received, and there- 
with quenched his thirst. Here Were two endeavors to al- 
leviate his sufferings. 

This cruel punishment was the doom of convicts for 
many years afterwards; and its ignominy was one of the 
principal obstacles to the spread of Christianity. And 
though it may be contended that he abolished the attend- 
ant disgrace, some have revived it by their attachment 
to the stake, ring, and fagot, — preserving its upright 
portion as a precious relic. His energy of character and 
integrity may have mutilated the cross; but, a single 
glance at the burning Servetus, Ridley, and Latimer, 
and at the numerous antos da fe, will convince one that 
the accursed tree had lost only its arms, and that even 
their place had been supplied with full equivalents. 



46 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; 

However this may be, it behooves us to proceed to our 
investigation, whether that excruciating treatment was 
fatal to Christ; in other words, whether it absolutely oc- 
casioned his DEATH. 

With regard to this matter, what says the account? 
John xix., 30. "And when he had received the vinegar," 
or posca, we are told that "he bowed his head and " — 
died! — oh, no; but, that he "gave up the ghost.". The 
corresponding Greek, paredoke to pneuma, is very dubi- 
ous, which should not be so, in recording such an unpar- 
alleled event. It may mean swooned, or suspended anima- 
tion. The Greek language was not so barren as to refuse 
more exact phrases. In substantiation of this, we need 
only say, that this very evangelist, John, (John xi., 16, 26, 
32, 37, 50, 51 , and xii., 33, and xxi., 23,) when giving the 
phrase "that we may die," uses^tna apothanomen, and 
almost universally the different tenses of the same verb to 
express just its signification. And Matthew, (Matt. xxii. 
27,) when he says. " last of all the woman died also," 
uses apethane for " died." So also does Mark (Mark xii., 
22,) in relating the same story. Nor is Luke (Luke xvi., 
22,) an exception; for he has the very word to express 
that " the rich man also. died." Thus far, then, we find 
no positive assertion that he did die. 

Let us now examine Matthew, and select the testimony 
given by him. All we can find, touching this point, is 
the announcement of the angel to the women: (Matt, xxviii., 
5 — 7,) " I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. 
Go and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead," 
apo ton nekron, from dead men. What says Mark? 
" And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and when 
he knewtf of the centuriou, he gave the body to Joseph." 
(Mark xv., 44, 45.) In such a delicate matter as deter- 
mining life or death, was not the cursory glance of the 
officer liable to mistake? And was the governor exceed- 
ingly anxious for his death? The young man in the sep- 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 47 

ulchre (Mark xvi., 5, 6,) addressed the women, '_• Ye seek 
Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified." Luke (Luke 
xxiv., 5 — 7) represents the women as accosted, " Why 
seek ye the living among the dead? — meta ton nekron — 
" among dead men.") Remember how he spake unto 
you while he was yet in Galilee, saying, the Son of Man 
must be crucified," 8lc. In Christ's conversation with 
the disciples going to Emmaus, (Luke xxiv., 13 — 46,) they 
asked if he had heard concerning the chief priests' and 
rulers' delivery of him to be condemned to death, and that 
they had crucified him. He replied, " Ought not Christ 
to have suffered these things?" When he came among 
his disciples, that evening, he quoted the Scriptures, that 
it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead, — eh 
nekron, from dead men. John states that " when they came 
to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake 
not his legs." (John xix., 33.) Still farther (John xx., 9) 
we are told that the disciples " as yet knew not the Scrip- 
ture, that he must rise again from the dead," ek nekron. 
Again, — he says, (John xxi., 14,) "This is now the third 
time that Jesus showed himself to his disciples, after that 
he was risen from the dead," ek nekron. Net one of the 
evangelists affirms that Christ rose from a dead state. 
Even in the Acts, it is intimated that he survived the suf- 
ferings, for it is there said, (Acts i., 3,) " he showed him- 
self alive after his passion (passion means suffering) by 
many infallible proofs." It does not say, after his death, 
nor does it say he died, but rather implies the contrary. 
They speak of his crucifixion, and of his rising from 
dead men, or bodies. They allude to prophecies apper- 
taining thereto. Christ himself, in his post-resurrection 
conferences with the disciples, asserts no actual death; — 
neither do they: but seem only surprised to find him alive, 
when they had abandoned him as dead. All the testimony 
then appears to consist in a hasty glance of soldiers under 
a favorable governor, and a centurion's mere affirmation 



48 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; ' 

to the facile Pilate, together with the negative silence of 
the two private friends, Joseph and Nicodemus: for, " the 
Jews besought that their (the convicts') legs might be 
broken." (John xix., 31.) The counter testimony, that he 
was alive for forty days, at least, after his suffering, and 
the " Lo ! I am with you all the days until the end of the 
age," (Matth. xxviii., 20,) instead of being contradicted, 
is unanimously supported by the writers, and seems to 
array the forces of original truth against erroneous sec- 
ondary constructions. 

Since, then, no positive, indubitable evidence has yet 
been adduced to prove the death, we proceed to examine 
the inferential, and the positions of its advocates. And 
if, in the course of our investigation, it be ascertained that 
the negative is more probable than the affirmative, — if, in 
truth, the affirmative be found exceedingly questionable, 
impossible to be established beyond a doubt, and difficult 
to be established at all, notwithstanding the superincum- 
bent strata of the belief and assertion of centuries, then 
the bodily resurrection from a dead state, as the term is 
generally understood, is consequently unworthy of our cre- 
dence. We deny not that he may have risen from the 
dead, among whom, we are told, he was deposited; nor 
do we deny that his preachers sincerely believed that his 
life did actually become extinguished. 

Let us then suppose that they meant he died, — did he 
die at the specified time? Or did he merely swoon with 
anguish? The latter would seem to be the fact. Cruci- 
fied persons commonly survived till the third, and some- 
times till the* seventh day; and he remained on the cross 
but a few hours. For, it was about twelve o'clock when 
Pilate said to the Jews, *' Behold your king! " (John xix., 
14.) Some delay then ensued; they had considerable 
conversation; his own clothes were put on, and he was 
led slowly away to the place of execution, bearing the 
cross. After they had reached the spot, it consumed a 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 49 

short time, at least, to arrange the cross, and to affix him 
to it; so that it must have-been past noon, if not past one 
o'clock, when he was crucified. Besides, among the Ro- 
mans, judgment was not given till after mid-day, by the 
law of the twelve tables.* Indeed, we have no certain 
data to ascertain the precise time when they had completed 
their arrangements, and affixed him to the cross. About 
three o'clock (Matt, xxvii., 46 — 50,) is the next assigned 
hour. He then " cried with aloud voice," and again, af- 
terwards. Before six o'clock, he was entombed; for the 
women had time to return to Jerusalem, (Luke xxiii., 56,) 
to buy, (Mark xvi. 1,) and to prepare spices and oint- 
ment, that they might rest the Sabbath day, according to 
the commandment, (Luke xxiii., 56 ;) and the Sabbath 
commenced at six o'clock in the afternoon. Add to this, 
that the previously taking down, the embalming, and the 
conveying the body, were not done in a moment; and the 
period of his suspension was quite short. Being superior 
to ordinary men, one would infer he had been capable to 
survive at least seven days; whereas we are ecclesiastically 
told that he lived not so many hours. Matthew (Matt, 
iv., 2,) and Luke (Luke iv., 2,) inform us that he sur- 
vived a fast of " forty days and forty nights, and did eat 
nothing " during that interval. 

What did they to hasten his death? The narration 
gives no positive clue to any thing. On the contrary, we 
are told that " they brake not his legs," (John xix., 33,) 
— though they fractured the bones of the thieves on 
either side of him, — not because they believed he was 
.dead, but " that the Scriptures should be fulfilled, A bone 
of him shall not be broken." (John xix., 36.) For, if 
they credited his death, why was the next act done? We 
are informed that " one of the soldiers with a spear pierced 
his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water:" 



* Gell, xvii.j 2. 



50 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; ^ 

(John xix., 34,) but it was done to fulfil another Scripture 
— " They shall look on him whom they pierced;" — and 
not because they believed he was not dead, nor be- 
cause they wished to hasten his death. For, if they be- 
lieved he was dead, why pierce him to kill him? If they 
believed he was not, why omit to break his legs alone? 

Much elaborate argument has been bestowed on this 
latter point. Among others, it has been the burden of 
two essays by physicians, to demonstrate that " the thrust 
of a lance into the left side, through the pericardium, from 
which lymph and blood flowed out, would have put a period 
to his life, if he had not been previously dead." That 
may be true; but where do we find mention of a " thrust"? 
John does not say so, and he is the only one who speaks 
of the spear: nor does he say " into the side." There is no 
preposition used in the original, in that verse. The Greek 
word enuxe, translated " pierced," in the thirty-fourth 
verse, (John xix.,) may with equal authority be rendered 
" pricked," and this is evidently the force of the expres- 
sion, if we consider that exekentesan, translated the same 
in the thirty-seventh verse, is a compound of a preposition 
ek, from, or out of, and kenteo, " I sting or prick." The 
word kentra, in the Acts, (Acts ix., 5,) correctly trans- 
lated " pricks," or goads, is of the same description, of 
the same origin. In the Revelations, (Rev. L, 7,) where 
it says " they who pierced him," the corresponding Greek 
is exekentesan, precisely the word for the same form of ex- 
pression, and referring to the same occurrence, and by 
the same evangelist. We are to understand the language 
as they meant it, and not as we would arbitrarily attach 
our meaning to it. If we consider the phrase (Acts ii.,37) 
" they were pricked in their heart," we shall find katena- 
gesan, a compound of a preposition, kata, and nnsso, " I 
prick." The above, enuxe, is the first 'aorist tense, in- 
dicative, of this verb nusso, and of course, means no more 
nor less than pricked. It is obviously all that John in- 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 51 

tended to convey to the mind. Had it been a violent 
thrust, the word oiliest might have answered as well. 
Such is the term used in the Acts (Acts vii., 39,) to de- 
signate a thrust. Had a 'piercing thrust been designed, 
dialeusetai might have been selected, as in the passage, 
(Luke ii., 35,) "a sword shall pierce through thy own 
soul." But, since no violent thrust was necessary to ful- 
fil the prophecy, (John xix., 37,) " They shall look on 
him whom they pricked," we need no fabrications; for, 
they may prove too much, defeat the fulfilment itself, and 
nullify the prediction. Nothing divine is left with loose 
ends; and the deviation of a hair's breadth is a violation! 
A truth is strong enough of itself, without any endeavors 
to strengthen it : foreign appliances only weaken; they are 
an artificial mask on a natural face. 

And why may we not accredit something to the lenien- 
cy of the Roman soldiers, when we have before been as- 
sured of it? They possessed hearts and feelings, as has 
been seen. One of the centurions had received a favor 
from him, for he had healed a favorite servant. (Matt, viii., 
13.) Was this kept secret from the soldiers? After his 
trial in the High priest's palace, and when he was sent to 
the judgment hall, the Roman governor did all in his 
power, under the circumstances, to check the Jewish 
fury. Pilate's wife had a dream, (Matt, xxvii., 19,) (and 
the Romans firmly believed in dreams,) which must have 
tended to influence her husband, for she despatched a 
message to him, sitting on the judgment-seat, — " Have 
thou nothing to do with that just man." And John (John 
xix., 12,) tells us that "from thenceforth Pilate sought to 
release him;" i. e.. after his conversation with him. Now, 
is it not probable that the soldiers, who were under Pi- 
late's command, (Matt, xxvii., 27,) were desirous to please 
their commander, or at least to manifest such a desire ? For 
he emphatically told them, both by words and deeds, that 
he leaned towards Christ, and would prevent the penal in- 
4# 



52 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; 

fliction, were it not for being impeached as one preferring 
Christ's claims to regal authority to those of Caesar. 
(John xix., 12.) They would evidently and naturally 
rather connive at every step towards his release, than 
seek to injure him. Pilate also obviously thought the 
scourging would satisfy his accusers, who, by the way, 
were not Romans. And some of the soldiers were Jews 
under Roman authority. Besides, the centurion (Luke 
xxiii., 47,) expressed his opinion that " Christ was a 
righteous man." He was standing " over against him." 
(Mark xv., 39.) 

By tracing the narrative attentively, they are dis- 
tinguishable from the disinterested Romans by their con- 
duct. Contumely, insult, and harsh usage were prompted 
by inveterate envy, and characterize the authors as Jews. 
Every kindness, every attempt to shield, as forcibly de- 
signates the Roman. The whole tenor of the narration, 
together with the true signification of the original, in- 
duces us to believe his side was not pierced very deep, 
and that Pilate gave private directions to his own trusty 
soldiery how to deport. We must remember that deeds 
are mentioned without much explanatory conversation, 
which undoubtedly accompanied them, and which, if 
known, might impose an entirely new aspect on many 
circumstances. Every defect evolves a mystery for su- 
perstition to adopt. 

If we proceed farther, we shall ascertain that the gov- 
ernor was not particularly anxious to be certified of 
Christ's absolute death. Mark (Mark xv., 44,) represents 
Pilate as astonished at the sudden exit, and as marvelling 
<( if he were already dead." We behold his reason for 
wondering, in the fact that victims generally dragged out 
an excruciating existence of several days. Nor did he 
much scruple to surrender the body; nor was he difficult 
to be satisfied. For he voluntarily relied on the word 
of the centurion, and the centurion deemed Christ inno- 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 53 

cent. (Mark xv., 45.) And since he seems to have been 
so easily convinced, we again detect a partial ray emana- 
ting from favorable feeling. " He washed his hands, 
saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person. ,, 
(Matt, xxvii., 24.) This was done in public, " before the 
multitude;" It was a disavowal of all participation in the 
proceedings. Would not Pilate have preferred his release 
to his death by crucifixion? And would he not act accord- 
ingly in the most, politic manner? 

We have already seen that there was not only no 
" thrust into his side," and that, if it should be proved 
there was, an alleged prediction would have been falsified. 
A thrust is rather too clumsy to verify the prophecy of a 
puncture. Neither does John say it was " the left side" 
—but, barely, " pierced his side." In the celebrated 
painting of Rubens, called "The Descent from the 
Cross," the artist has represented a scar in the right 
side, and he probably had as good cause for so exhibiting 
ife as did the physicians in their manner. Indeed, we 
have the following account in the Gospel of the Infancy, ^ 
which was received by a Christian sect in the second 
century: " Then Judas, who was possessed, came and sat 
down at the right hand of Jesus. When Satan was acting 
upon him as usual, he went about to bite the Lord Jesus; 
and because he could not do it, he struck Jesus on his 
right side, so that he cried out. And in the same moment 
Satan went out of the boy. This same boy who struck 
Jesus was Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him to the Jews. 
And that same side on which Judas struck him, the Jews 
pierced with a spear." Rubens may have derived the 
hint from this source. Nor does John say that the peri- 
cardium was pierced through. He does not even say 
that " lymph and blood" issued; nor does he tell us 
whether it "flowed out" rushed out, or oozed out: but, 

* 1 Infancy, xiv. ? 5 — 10. 



54 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 

simply, that it " came out." All that we can collect from 
him is this: (John xix., 31 — 34,) The Jews, because it 
was the preparation, that the>bodies should not remain on 
the cross on the Sabbath day, besought Pilate to have their 
legs broken, and to have them taken away. He accord- 
ingly soon sent his faithful soldiers, who broke the legs of 
the two thieves, condemned by the Roman law; but they 
omitted to break the legs of Jesus. Was not that signifi- 
cant of Pilate's confidential directions? One of them with 
a spear pierced his side. Does not precaution eloquently 
manifest itself in this act? We are told that, euthus exel- 
then, (singular number) aima kai udor, " forthwith came 
there out blood and water." Here we have a verb in the 
singular number, agreeing with two nouns, each in the 
singular, and coupled by a conjunction. We leave the 
critics to determine how long kai udor, (i and water," 
have been incorporated with the context. 

Why the two physicians used the terms ct lymph 
and blood," is obvious. The pericardium is the mem- 
brane that surrounds the heart, which is, of course, 
within, and protected by the ribs. If we reckon the 
liquor of the pericardium as consisting of 100 parts, 
92 of those parts are lymph. Hence, they used those 
terms as they did, to convey the unwarranted idea, that 
there was a major portion of lymph, and a minor por- 
tion of blood ; and that, consequently, no membrane 
but the pericardium could furnish such proportions. 
But we see no authority for all this. They have trans- 
posed the words, (or their translators have,) to answer 
their own purpose, by placing " lymph " before " blood," 
to cause a belief in the " thrust into the left side," as well 
as that this imaginary thrust was violent enough to pene- 
trate the ribs and reach a mortal part. Now, though this 
might have been indispensable to prove a " thrust through 
the pericardium," it was not at all essential to make it cor- 
respond with John's narration. There is lymph on the 
surface of the cellular membrane. When we raise a 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 55 

blister, commonly called a water-blister, by any irritating 
application, by burning, by labor, or otherwise, we have 
lymph at hand. Why then the need of plunging into the 
cavity of the chest for this fluid? The cellular membrane 
is near the skin's surface; and the skin is the most sensi- 
tive part of the animal economy, as is experienced in 
surgical operations. Why then the need of perforating 
the pericardium to ascertain whether Christ was dead? 
and, especially, when he was pierced for another pur- 
pose, viz., to verify a Scriptural prediction? Besides, in 
a sound condition of health, the quantity of lymph on this 
membrane is exceedingly small, — just enough to lubricate 
the heart in its operations: it would be absolutely imper- 
ceptible to a casual observer of so much intermingled 
blood. And if, by a violent death, by epilepsy, by swoon- 
ing, or by any invasion of the laws of health, the quan- 
tity of lymph increases in the pericardium by a decompo- 
sition of the blood, by an unusual separation of the watery 
fluid from the solid, the same happens to the lymph of the 
cellular membrane; so that no advantage is gained on 
this score, in assuming the pericardium as the pierced 
membrane. Again: even if the pericardium be supposed 
to have been penetrated, it would have been necessary for 
the spear to pass through so many fountains of blood, 
that its consequent flow would have been so disproportion- 
ate to the lymph, that the latter would have been scarcely 
noticeable; whereas, on the contrary, the cellular mem- 
brane being so much nearer the skin's surface, the lymph 
would naturally be more observable, as not mixed with so 
much blood. But, what part of the Gospels reads that it 
was lymph? John is the only narrator of this fact, and 
he declares it was water. Was it not sweat? Indeed, it 
would be more reasonable to suppose that the blood, on its 
issuing, mingled with his sweat, which such intenll and 
overpowering anguish must have produced in considerable 
quantity, and thereby presented water to the sight of an 



56 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 

excited disciple, than that the pericardium was thrust 
through. For Luke (Luke xxii., 44,) affirms that he 
sweat profusely, " as it were great drops of Mood," when 
in an agony, or painful dilemma, in the garden of Gethse- 
mane: and this position would seem to be confirmed by . 
John, (John xix., 28,) where he is represented to have 
thirsted, doubtless from an undue perspiration by the tor- 
ture of crucifixion. 

From the preceding, the proper inference seems to be, 
that instead of the soldier being ferocious, in an age of 
peace established by Augustus, and violently plunging the 
spear into his side through the pericardium, this soldier 
was under the guidance of Pilate, who was favorably dis- 
posed towards Christ; that he was not an accuser with a 
rabid zeal to have^his vengeance glutted; that he had a 
human heart and mild feelings, especially if he belonged 
to that species of Roman infantry called " hastati," be- 
cause they carried " hastae," or spears, — who, according 
to the Roman historian, Livy,* were young men, and, of 
course, had tender susceptibilities as one motive, and a 
character to establish for promotion in the army through 
their commander's favor as another, (and the grades of 
rank were very numerous;) that he received, either per- 
sonally, or mediately, by the amicable centurion, secret in- 
structions from that commander, who wished to be unim- 
peachable in the public estimation, and to assist the un- 
fortunate victim; and that he accordingly just punctured 
the sensitive skin, which occasioned the appearance of 
blood and water, or of blood* mingled with sweat. 

As to the expression "jloiced out," the corresponding 
Greek word, exelthen, signifies " came from, or out of, or 
forth," and nothing more. It is altogether different from 
the words, which signify "to run," "to rush," or "to 
flow, '•—quite as different as are these words from each 

*Livy 3 VI1L, viii. 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 57 

other in English. Every thing, in fact, attending the 
circumstance, favors the interpretation " came out," in 
preference to " flowed out," or any other phrase; and 
hence it confirms us that the blood and water came not 
far from the skin's surface, and that the puncture was not 
mortal, nor severe enough to revive Christ, but that it was 
a mere matter of form to shield Pilate from any charge of 
collusion or palpable favoritism. And what does John 
say? (John xix., 34.) " Forthwith came there out blood 
and water." He gives blood the precedence. This could 
not have been for the sake of euphony, since, in his first 
epistle, (1 John v., 6,) it is written, " This is he that came 
by water and blood." We are also told that the centurion 
who exclaimed, (Luke xxiii.,47,) i( Certainly this was a 
righteous man," was " watching Jesus," (Matt, xxvii., 
54,) and would have naturally denounced any violence 
perpetrated by a subordinate; and that " all the people 
who came together to the sight, beholding the things which 
were done, smote their breasts, and returned;" (Luke 
xxiii., 43) — thus evincing agitation and displeasure at the 
transactions. None of this, by any means, invalidates our 
belief that the legs were left unbroken by the governor's 
order; for, we are apprized by John (John xix., 4 and 12,) 
that having found no fault in him, he was anxious to effect 
his release; and he evidently entertained a lurking doubt 
of his actual death. We believe that Pilate's operations 
were concealed from the public gaze from motives of pol- 
icy, fearing lest by being too precipitate, he should not so 
well aid Christ as by being moderate and circumspect. 
Indeed, Matthew (Matt, xxvii., 24,) plainly assures us that 
"Pilate saw he could prevail nothing, but that rather a 
tumult was made," by his public endeavors to appease the 
Jewish populace in reconciling them to a release of the 
captive. And if he externally dreaded the jealous dispo- 
sition of Tiberius, he had an internal monitor, which for- 
cibly advocated the cause of innocence. The conclusion, 



58 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 

then, that he plied all the secret means in his power to re- 
lieve and liberate the accused, is almost, if not quite, un- 
avoidable. If the person and name of Pilate be unseen, 
his influence is perceptible, and identifies him as the mas- 
ter-spirit of the scene. 

For a confirmation of the depth of the wound, we may 
be requested to consult John John xx., 25 — 27,) once 
more, who represents the incredulous Thomas as saying, 
cc Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, 
and put my finger into the print of the nails, amd thrust 
my hands into his side, I will not believe," and who in 
like manner informs us that Christ thus addressed the un- 
believer: " Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands 
— and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side." 
Omitting any comments on the fact that this doubt evi- 
denced an ignorance, a forgetting, a misapprehension, or 
a disbelief, of the alleged prophecies concerning the resur- 
rection, either of which is strange, when we consider his 
relationship to his master, and Christ's invariably bold, 
happy, and lucid method of revealing himself, together 
with the importance of it, we proceed to the subject. 

It is supposed by many that the gospels were written 
principally in Greek, and not till some years after the 
events had transpired ; that the Jews, in the time of Christ, 
spoke the Syriac tongue, but usually the Hebrew, and that 
all the European versions are from the Latin: so that, on 
this ground, they were spoken in Syriac or Hebrew, writ- 
ten in Greek, translated into Latin, (or vice versa,) and 
re-translated into English, before they became intelligible 
to us. These writings were committed to the custody of 
the Fathers of the Church, who were anxious to dissemi- 
nate them, or their views concerning them. Jerome, one 
of the number, who flourished in the fourth century, in the 
same century with the celebrated council of Nice, and of 
the conversion of Constantine, declared, in his preface 
to the Gospels, that ho two copies of the Latin versions 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 59 

were alike. If then alterations, interpolations, various 
translations, and other things had made such a metamor- 
phosis in them at his time, and he complains of the inter- 
polation of a marginal note of his own into the body of 
the*text, what can be expected at this late age, but some 
uncertainty, generated by spuriousness? To the sixteenth 
century, the Roman Catholic Church had many of the 
manuscripts in their private custody. During this inter- 
val, the verse of the three heavenly witnesses, (1 John v., 
7,) and we know not how many others, crept into the 
writings; nor do we know how many crept out. Now 
commenced the Reformation by Martin Luther, a Catho- 
lic monk; and the art of printing, about a century before. 
The difficulty, or rather the absolute impossibility of in- 
fusing precisely the same signification into a translation 
as the original imported, (the one bearing a similar rela- 
tion to the other as the image in a mirror bears to the real 
face, much depending on the fairness of the mirror,) the 
certainty of many interpolations, erasures, . mistakes of 
copyists, forgeries, and corruptions; the probability of nu- 
merous typographical errors; and the well-known gene- 
rative and modifying tendency of a false sectarian zeal; 
all conspire to render a suspicion of alterations extremely 
probable, at least. And the Unitarian New Version, 
page 22, corroborates this suspicion, by declaring that 
more than one hundred and thirty thousand various read- 
ings are now in the manuscripts of the New Testament. 
Each reader has doubtless had a standard of his own, to 
which he has endeavored to make the sense conform by at- 
taching his own interpretation to this or that word, with- 
out regard to its primitive innate meaning; as we perceive 
is now daily done by the different sects to support their 
respective tenets. They deduce inferences justifiable to 
their brethren alone; for they are accustomed to sail to- 
gether in the same channel. Thus was it also that the 
physicians invested a word, simply conveying the idea of 



60 



THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J 



a puncture, with the unwarrantable force of a thrust into 
the left side, through the pericardium! to sustain their pre- 
viously-established belief. They first framed their opinions 
from hearsay or superficial examination, and then sought 
for arguments to rally as subsidiaries. Nature and rea- 
son should be consulted before art; for every thing divine 
is true, and every thing true corresponds to them with 
the most undeviating fidelity and accuracy. With these 
qualifying remarks, how shall we view the translation of 
the Greek word halo, literally meaning " I shall cast, or 
throw," and translated "I shall thrust," in one clause, 
and " I shall put," in another, of the same verse? (John 
xx., 25.) Or how shall we view the verb itself, — whether 
interpolated, miscopied, altered or corrupted? How shall 
we regard the Greek preposition eis, which has upwards 
of a dozen significations, and is translated "into" in that 
verse, in the one after it, " in," in the first verse of the 
chapter, " unto," in the second of Peter, (chap, ii., 22,) 
"to," in Ephesians, (chap, v., 32,) "concerning" in 
Matthew, (chap, v., 35,) "by," in 1 Corinthians, (chap, 
iv., 3,) "for," and differently in other passages?* What 
shall govern us but the evidently natural sense? Shall 
we adopt the translation and selection of the bishops, and 
believe that Thomas, one of the primitive disciples, can- 
did and sensible, really wished to thrust his hand into the al- 
leged deep gash, and thereby irritate, aggravate, and renew 
the pangs of his Master? For, according to Luke, (Luke 
xxiv., 30 — 39,) Christ was the same after the resurrection 
as before, with respect to flesh, bones, and appetite. Shall 
we for a moment believe he was so cruel and barbarous?* 
Is it natural? Is it reasonable? Or shall we rather be- 



*It is translated " toward n in the following passages : Acts 
i.j 10 ; Romans xiL, 16 ; 2 Corinthians xiii., 4; Galatians ii., 8; 
and 2 Thessalonians i., 3. Apply this to the account of the as- 
cent, or, as it is called, the ascension. 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 61 

lieve he merely desired to be satisfied that his Teacher 
was tangible, and to identify him by the scars? Ten days 
(John xx., 26,) had elapsed, and perhaps more, since the 
incisions were made, and the sanative applications of 
Christ's friends would tend to heal the wounds in that 
time. We learn (John xii., 7,) that Mary had kept some 
precious ointment against the day of his burying. This 
ointment was a healing balsam. . And the myrrh, which 
Nicodemus put upon him at his burying, was a gum pos- 
sessing medicinal or healing properties. Then again, 
they had several times (Matt, xiv., 26,) supposed him to 
be a spirit. (Luke xxiv., 37.) Now, is it not altogether 
more likely that Thomas was only desirous to be cer- 
tain that he was not a spirit? Was it not sufficient for 
him^to touch, or " put his hand to " his side, and " to "the 
mark of the nails? Would not this have answered every 
purpose, and have been more true to nature at the same 
time? For, John does not pretend to assert that Thomas 
did so thrust in his hand. Nor would it be tolerated to 
surmise that the. doctrines of Christ, especially when de- 
livered in all their purity, with the eloquent accompani- 
ment of energetic and impressive action, and then fresh 
from the genuine source, .produced a callous heart in his 
disciple, or had that tendency. Neither does the evan- 
gelist, in his very minute description, mention that the 
feet were pierced. The other three, are equally silent on 
this point. With the above reasonable considerations, 
what becomes of the deep flesh-wound?* 

This completes our examination of the inferential evi- 

* Dr. Wm. F. Alexander, of Charlestown. Jefferson County, 
Virginia, has recently communicated to the American Journal of 
Medicine and Surgery, a new case of protracted vitality after a 
wound of the heart. The subject was stabbed in an affray, 
the weapon passing entirely through the left ventricle of the 
heart, entering the pericardium, and wounding the diaphragm. 
Yet he lived seventy-eight hours after this dreadful wound. 



62 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J % 

dence, and the positions of the physicians. And we 
must confess, that thus far in our inveetigation, we have 
encountered nothing sufficiently cogent to convince us 
beyond a reasonable doubt, of the actual death of Christ 
while on the cross. Soon after the crucifixion, before the 
body had been removed, which, according to the Jewish 
law, (Deut. xxi., 23,) was to be interred or carried away 
that day, commenced the process of 



BURIAL. 



It seems that, Cf when the even was come, there came a 
rich man of Arimathea, named Joseph, who also himself 
was Jesus' disciple: He went to Pilate and begged the body 
of Jesus." (Matt, xxvii., 57, 58.) " And Pilate marvelled 
if he were already dead; and calling the centurion, he 
asked him whether he had been any while dead. And 
when he knew it of the centurion," (Mark xv., 44, 45,) 
" he commanded the body to be delivered." (Matt, xxvii., 
58.) " And there came also Nicodemus, (which at the 
first came to Jesus by night,) and brought a mixture of 
myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound. Then took 
they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with 
the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. Now 
in the place where he was crucified, there was a garden, 
and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never 
man yet laid. There laid they Jesus therefore, because 
of the Jews' preparation; for the sepulchre was nigh at 
hand." (John xix., 39 — 42.) " And the women also, 
which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and 
beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid." (Luke 
xxiii., 55.) " Mary Magdalene, and Mary of Joses, be- 
held where he was laid." (Mark xv., 47.) They were 
M sitting over against the sepulchre," (Matt, xxvii., 61,) 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 63 

when Joseph " rolled a great stone to the door of it, and 
departed." (Matt, xxvii., 60.) " And they returned and 
prepared spices and ointment; and rested the Sabbath 
day, according to the commandment. " (Luke xxiii., 56.) 
Here we have a rich man as a disciple, " but secretly, for 
fear of the Jews." (John xix., 38.) Mark says, (Mark 
xv., 43,) " he went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the 
body." Does not this strongly intimate that the governor 
was either a disciple himself, or at least, indulgently in- 
clined towards Christ? and that Joseph was cognizant of 
• the fact? Or why should he fear the Jews, and not Pi- 
late? Why does it emphasize '''Joseph who also himself," 
unless it was designed to signify that Pilate was likewise 
a disciple, but secretly for fear of the Jewish rage, or of 
impeachment ? 

Then it appears that Christ is in the temporary custody 
of a disciple, who was " an honorable counsellor." (Mark 
xv., 43.) However, " on the next day, the chief priests 
and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, saying, Sir, we 
remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, 
After three days I will rise again: command, therefore, 
that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest 
his disciples come by night and steal him away, and say 
unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last 
error shall be worse than the first. Pilate said unto them, 
Ye have a watch; go your way, make it as sure as you 
can. So they went and made the sepulchre -sure, sealing 
the stone and setting a watch." (Matt, xxvii., 62 — 66.) 
This closes the series of proceedings appertaining to the 
burial. We leave the scene of the sealed tomb, and the 
guards stationed there, to consider the proofs of the - 



64 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; 



RESURRECTION. 

According to the generally received opinion, the Gos- 
pels furnish no evidence that there were any eye-witnesses 
of this remarkable event. Though Christ is said to have 
been seen after he had emerged from the sepulchre, very 
few, on account of their secondary ideas, admit that any 
one saw him in the act of his egress. We, on the con- 
trary, shall endeavor to satisfy candid minds that he was, 
at that critical juncture, an object of actual vision; but, 
in our view, he only rose from the dead, and not from a 
dead state. And we think the tenor of the narration amply 
warrants our belief, however unique it may appear. We 
have seen above, that, in an abstract light, there could be 
no possible exclusive utility in, or necessity of, a bonajide 
resurrection; and we now propose to inquire what sub- 
stantial testimony is extant to invite our assent to the fact. 

The narrative appears to be thus: — u Now upon the 
first day of the week, very early in the morning," (Luke 
xxiv., 1, 2,) " Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of 
James, and Salome," (Mark xvi., 1 — 3,) and " some with 
them," (Luke xxiv., 1, 2,) started with " the spices which 
they had prepared," (Ibid) for the purpose of visiting the 
sepulchre and of anointing Christ. (Mark xvi., 1 — 3.) 
While they were on their way thither, " they said among 
themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the 
door?" (Mark xvi., 1 — 3.) At their arrival, " they found 
it rolled away." (Luke xxiv., 1,2.) Matthew states (Matt, 
xxviii., 2 — 4,) that " there was a great earthquake; for 
the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came 
and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. 
His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white 
as snow. And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 65 

became as dead men." The rolling back of the huge 
stone of course shook the ground, and caused " the earth- 
quake " in that immediate neighborhood. Indeed, the 
statement intimates as much; since the descent of an an- 
gel, the only accompanying occurrence, did not necessa- 
rily produce the jar, while the concussion of a large stone 
against the ground would; and we are consequently told 
that this was the wherefore, the gar, translated "for." 
The women mention no earthquake, nor did they appa- 
rently suspect the stone was removed; neither do they al- 
lude to the watchmen, concerning whom they evidently, 
at that time, knew nothing. It appears, however, that 
some of these watchmen " came into the city," when the 
women were going." (Matt, xxviii., 11.) Hence, they 
must have witnessed the transactions before the women 
had set out. They had been stationed to watch; and 
their post was hear the sepulchre. Their attention was 
naturally attracted by the trembling of the ground, where- 
on they were standing, towards the spot whence it origi- 
nated. Sight convinced them that the stone, which but a 
few moments since was at the door, was now removed. 
It was at that time, — offer the trembling, — that they saw 
" the angel of the Lord " upon the stone. In their terror, 
they concluded he came from heaven; for, whence else 
could they expect an angel? Their fright also magnified 
this being into a supernatural essence: for, they were not 
entirely free from superstition, as we shall presently see. 
This accounts for the women's apparent ignorance of the 
earthquake; for, the shock did not extend far enough to 
secure their notice. 

Now, was not this angel, with snow-white raiment and 
shining countenance, the identical Jesus, with a pallid, 
ghastly face, and in his linen grave-clothes, all illuminat- 
ed by the uncertain moon-light, recovered from his swoon? 
Did he not himself roll back the stone, and his sudden ap- 
pearance terrify the keepers? It appears that even Mary 
5 



66 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 

Magdalene, his intimate acquaintance, did not recognise 
when she first saw him; for, John tells us (John xx., 15,) 
she mistook him for the gardener of Joseph. Neither did 
the other women recognise him in the " young man sitting* 
on the right side of the sepulchre, clothed in a long white 
garment," (Mark xvi., 5.) Nor did his two disciples, 
(Luke xxiv., 13 — 28,) as he overtook and accompanied 
them on their journey to Emmaus; for, they regarded him 
as a stranger. Again: we find (Johnxxi., 1 — 4 and 14,) 
that the disciples did not know him when he stood on the 
sea-shore of Tiherias, though it was the third time that 
he had showed himself to them. Is it any wonder then 
that the keepers, in their consternation, did not know him? 
It would indeed have been wonderful, if they had, in the 
dim twilight, and virtual strangers as they were to him. 
They communicated the intelligence of these things to the 
chief priests, (Matt, xxviii., 11,) and hence, originated the 
story of the earthquake. Now, is it not more likely that 
the individual who rolled away and sat upon the stone, 
was Christ in his white grave-clothes, than an angel, ar- 
rayed in a shining garment ? Remember that Joseph rolled 
it to the sepulchre. (Matt, xxvii., 60.) 

History advises us that the Romans were very super- 
stitious in that age, as well as the Jews. Forty years 
before Christ, a spectre is said* to have appeared to and 
addressed Brutus, as his evil genius, before and after the 
battle at Philippi; and that Cassius, an Epicurean, dis- 
credited the truth of the story. About eleven years after 
this, just before the battle at Actium,f many wonderful 
omens occurred; such as the swallowing of a colony by 
an earthquake; the perspiring of Antony's statue for 
many days; the firing of the temple of Hercules by light- 
ning; the prostration of the statue of Bacchus, and of two 
other colossal ones called Antonii; and the ousting of one 

* Plutarch in vita Bruti. f Plutarch in vita Antonii. 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 67 

set of swallows from a nest built in the stern of Cleopa- 
tra's royal galley, by another. The Romans considered 
even the most common occurrences as ominous. Sooth- 
sayers, or wonder-interpreters, were numerous among 
them. They saw portentous signs in the lightning, and in 
the thunder; in the flight, singing, and croaking of birds; 
in the feeding of chickens; in a person's sneezing, or 
spilling salt; in the manner a quadruped crossed the road; 
and in apparitions. Credited dreams were innumerable. 
Indeed, we are informed # that these dreams were not 
confined to the lower classes; for, Augustus Cesar him- 
self, during whose reign Christ was born, in consequence 
of a dream, annually on a certain day, begged alms of 
the people, to avoid adversity; and he is pronounced by 
the same author to have been very superstitious. And on 
account of the loss of his ships in a storm, he forbade 
them to carry in procession, at the Circensian games, JVep- 
tune's image* with those of the other gods. Neptune was 
the god of the sea. To the dream of Pilate's wife, (Matt. 
xxvii., 19,) we have already alluded. Another historian, | 
born four or five years after the alleged death of Christ, 
and a contemporary of Suetonius, communicates to us 
that the angel of Eusebius,J an apostolic father, and that 
of the Acts, (Acts xii., °2\ — 23, aggelos Kuriou, messen- 
ger of the Lord,) were identical, being an owl,§ which 

* Suetonius in Augusto, 16,91, 92. fJosephus. 

X Anakupsas de tes eautou kephales uper leather zomenon eiden ag- 
gelon epi schoiniou tinos. Touton euthus enoese kakou einai aition, 
— [Eccles. Hist. , Lib. IT., ix. 

Translation. ll And having raised his eyes, he saw an angel 
sitting upon a certain rope over his head. He immediately 
perceived this to be the cause or omen of evils. ;; 

§ Anakupsas de oun ton bubona tes eautou kephales up erkather zom- 
enon eiden epi schoiniou tinos aggclon te touton euthus enomjsen ka- 
kon einai. — [Joseph. Antiq. ; Lib. XIX., ch. viii., sec. 2. 

Translation. " And therefore having raised his eyes, he saw 

5* 



63 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; 

appeared to Herod Agrippa in the theatre, and which he 
superstitiously regarded as an evil messenger, or angel. 
He saw the owl perched on a rope over his head. This 
was about A. D. 43, during Peter's life, A firm belief 
in such occurrences obtained among them for many cen- 
turies afterwards, if we may credit the account of Con- 
stantino's ominous cross, A. D. 312, and other historical 
narrations. 

Hence, we perceive no cause for surprise that the 
soldiers supposed Jesus to be an angel or messenger 
from heaven. Or, if they were Jewish recruits, which 
is not very unlikely, as the governor told them " Ye have 
a watch," and as the watch repaired to the chief priests 
to make known the strange occurrences, their supersti- 
tion is indisputable. And, indeed, unless this be the true 
state of the case, no one is said to have witnessed the resur- 
rection.* 

an owl sitting upon a certain rope over his head, and this he im- 
mediately conjectured to be an angel or messenger of evils. JJ 

* If this be not an acceptable view of the matter, and we 
cannot conceive why it should not be, agreeing as it does with 
the evangelical account, and needing no subterfuges to harmo- 
nize it, we have a pretty strong hypothesis to present, which may 
recommend itself to ecclesiastical adoption : for. all their conside- 
rations of the event are entirely hypothetical, which disagree 
with the above, and we know of none that agrees with it. Mat- 
thew relates that the Jews came to Pilate, and requested him to 
have the sepulchre made sure until the third day, lest the disci- 
ples come by night and steal him away; that Pilate, with per- 
fect non-chalance, told them to go their way, and make it as sure 
as they could ; and that they went and made it sure. Now, when 
was this application made to Pilate ? Was it while Christ was 
on the cross ! Was it even on the day of the crucifixion % Not 
either. Observe that it was the day after the same ; and conse- 
quently, that a .niglrf had intervened before the watch was set ! 
Was any thing more than an empty sepulchre secured? Was 
Christ at that time in the tomb ? Did not Joseph, or some other 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 69 

In addition to this^it is obvious that it was not expected, 
believed, nor known by the disciples that he was to rise. 
That it was not expected, we judge from their conduct, 
when he came among them after the crucifixion: "they 
were terrified, and supposed they saw a spirit," (Luke 
xxiv., 37,) notwithstanding they had been previously ad- 
vised of his re-appearance by Mary Magdalene and other 
women, (Luke xxiv., 10.) Nor does it seem that these 
women expected to see him alive when they went to the 
sepulchre, the third day; or why should they carry 
"spices" thither? (Luke xxiv., 1.) That it was not 
believed, we conclude from the astonishment manifested 
by the two disciples, who travelled with him the same day 
to Emmaus, (Luke xxiv., 13 — 25,) at the account of the 
women who reported him to be alive; and from the reproof 
he administered to them for their slowness of heart to be- 
lieve: also, from the incredulity of Thomas, (John xx., 
25,) notwithstanding the assurance he received of the fact 
from his fellow-disciples: and from the declaration of 
Matthew, (Matt, xxviii., 17,) that when the eleven met 
him on an appointed mountain in Galilee, " some doubt- 
ed: 55 as well as from the several assertions of Mark, 

disciple of equal strength, (for, Joseph rolled the stone to the 
door,) during that very night, before the stone was sealed, roll 
the self-same stone from the door? He, or any one else, even 
Christ himself, had ample opportunity before the watch was set — on 

THE NIGHT PREVIOUS? 

It is the opinion of some that the application was made that 
evening. But, the Jews, especially " the chief priests and Phar- 
isees," were strenuous observers of the Sabbath, and that was a 
peculiar one, being the day of the Passover celebration ;• hence, 
others believe they postponed securing the sepulchre until after 
the completion of the ceremonies of the day. lest they should 
violate the sanctity, or interrupt their attention to its solemnities. 
However this may be, the text runs : " Now the next day that 
followed the day of the preparation,'" &c, Matt. xxvii., 62 — 66. 



70 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 

(Mark xvi., 10 — 14,) to the same effect. Not only were 
they far from crediting the probability of the event, but 
they would not even believe the solemn asseverations 
made by those of their own number, who had been with 
and seen him. That it was not known to them at the 
moment of its occurrence, we infer from the above; for, 
had they known, they would have believed: and from the 
remark (John xx., 9,) of his bosom-companion, ' ; as yet 
they knew not the scripture,* that he must rise again 
from the dead." That it was not even suspected, may be 
deduced from their not being on the spot at the time to 
witness it; and if the precise hour had been told to any, 
it is supposable that his immediate followers would have 
been the recipients, and would have acted accordingly. — 
Instead of this, we are informed (Luke xxiv., 21,) that 
they " trusted it had been he who should have redeemed 
Israel," implying disappointment of their confidence in 
his Messiahship. All this inclines to show that, if they did 
not expect, believe, know, nor suspect, his resurrection, 
at the time of, or before, its occurrence, they did not re- 
gard his death as connected with any such event, nor in- 
vested with any more importance than common deaths. 
When they believed he was dead, they evidently thought 
that was the end of him. The rising from a dead state, 
was a very difficult and obstinate article of conviction 
even to familiar acquaintances, notwithstanding the alleg- 
ed numerous predictions of the same. Their belief in 
his crucifixion and in his death is not represented to have 
been so stubborn. That they may have believed he actu- 
ally died on the cross, [which would have verified the 
prophecy of the chief priest, Caiaphas, and made him a 
true prophet!] (John xi., 51,) we do not deny; for, the 
spirit of the narration seems to involve this idea. Nor do 
we deny that they may have believed he rose again; for, 

* What scripture 1 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 71 

they obviously had ocular demonstration of it. Neither 
will we allow that they may not afterwards have believed 
he did not in reality die, but revived, and rose from dead 
men; or providentially escaped the jaws of death, and 
thereby set at naught his enemies' power. 

Having disposed of tljis part of the subject, we now ar- 
rive at a consideration of the several 



APPEARANCES 



During the forty days mentioned in the Acts. It is 
clear that he confined himself pretty closely to his friends; 
so much so that the bribed soldiers, who first witnessed the 
resurrection, spread a report, which was for some years 
circulated, that virtually denied the fact. And this could 
not have been effectually done, had he mingled with the 
public. He frequented the company of those, who did 
not understand (Luke xviii., 34,) his alleged prophecies 
concerning this matter; and avoided them, who appear to 
have heard something of the kind, (Matt, xxvii., 63,) and 
who suspected a trick for its accomplishment. Belief in 
his subsequent existence was very gradual; and embraced 
even by his disciples by the force of ocular, colloquial, 
and tangible evidence alone. This seems to imply their 
apprehension of his mortality; and their belief that he had 
rather recovered from a swoon, that they were mistaken s 
in his death, than that he was a re-animated corpse. Some 
of them however may have thought differently, since the 
Pharisaic creed relied in the resurrection. (Acts xxiii., 
8.) But as we have said before, belief in neither case is 
a fact; nor is it the result of a fact; but, the result on the 
mind of evidence received concerning the fact. 

The order of his appearances seems to have been as 
follows: after he had been seen by the guards, (Matt, 
xxviii., 2 — 4,) and perhaps by Mary of James, and Salome, 



72 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; 

(Mark xvi., 1 — 5) [for, Mary Magdalene separated from 
these two, when she saw the stone was removed, and ran 
to tell Peter, and John that the Lord had been taken away 
from the sepulchre, (John xx., 2,) as she supposed] neith- 
er of whom recognised him, w T e are told ' ' he appeared first 
to Mary Magdalene;" (Mark xvi.. 9,) then, on the same 
day, to Simon Peter, (Luke xxiv., 34,) who was also 
called Cephas, (John i., 42,) and to the two disciples, 
journeying to the village of Emmaus; (Luke xxiv., 15,) 
next, that evening, to nine or ten of the disciples, (John 
xx., 19,) [for, it was announced to them that Peter had 
seen him, (Luke xxiv., 34,) which rather argues Peter's 
absence, and Thomas was not present;] again after * 
eight days, to the eleven; (John xx., 26,) afterwards, to 
seven of them, (John xxi., 1 — 4,) in the morning; once 
more, (Matt, xxviii., 16, 17,) to his disciples on the ap- 
pointed mountain, in Galilee; and lastly, on Mount Oli- 
vet, (Luke xxiv., 50-51,) making nine or ten appearances 
recorded, up to that date, quite conclusively proving that 
he was alive after the crucifixion. It was very early, Sun- 
day morning, that the guards saw him sitting upon the 
stone, which he had rolled away from the mouth of the 
sepulchre. After sufficient time had elapsed for them to 
reach the city, and for the women to walk to the tomb, the 
latter saw him sitting on the right side of it: they hastened 
away affrighted. Shortly, came Peter, and went into it, and 
saw the grave-clothes lying in two different places. But 
Mary Magdalene stood without; and with weeping eyes, 
she stooped down and looked in, and saw these white gar- 
ments, which she, in the uncertain light and through her 
tears, mistook for two angels sitting, the one [the nap- 
kin] at the head, and the other [the linen clothes] at the 
feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. A voice ad- 
dressed her, which, in her confusion, appeared to issue 

* The feast of the unleavened bread, immediately following 
the day of the passover, continued seven days. 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 73 

from the supposed angels. She replied, and turned her- 
self back, and saw one, who, she thought, was the gar- 
dener; it was Christ. Rumor intermixed this with the 
prior occurrence; and framed the story of their meeting 
him and holding him by the feet, which found its way into 
the Gospel. Where Simon saw him, we are not informed. 
It was on the same day that he walked sixty furlongs, 
mostly in company with Cleopas and another disciple, 
conversed with them, and when he had arrived at the 
town, went in and sat at meat with them. He left them, 
and they soon returned to Jerusalem, where they found 
the assembled disciples. It was in the evening. While 
they were relating the matter, he came in, and showed 
them his hands and feet, to identify himself as different 
from a spirit,' which they took him to be. This journey 
out and back [one hundred and twenty furlongs] argues 
a little against the idea of nailed feet, except those 
ten natural nails, which people generally have in their 
feet. It was the first time that he showed himself to 
his disciples. After eight days, while they were again 
with Thomas in their room, he showed himself to them, 
the second time. Some days subsequently, he showed 
himself to them, the third time, in the morning, on 
the shore of the sea of Tiberias, which is sixty or 
seventy miles from Jerusalem. There were seven of 
them present. Being then in Galilee, it is reasonable to 
suppose that he met them afterwards on the appointed 
mountain. Between that and the fortieth day, they re- 
turned to Jerusalem, not far from which place, near or at 
Bethany, which was situated at the foot of the Mount of 
Olives, he parted from them. These apparently include 
not the posterior appearances, to which we shall, by-the- 
bye, have occasion to allude. But, they induce us to 
proceed to the next step, and to consider the ascension. 



74 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE I 



ASCENSION. 



According to the account of Luke, (Luke xxiv., 50, 51,) 
Christ conducted them towards Bethany,* where he raised 
his hands and blessed them: and in the act of blessing 
them, he separated from or took his leave of them, and 
went up towards heaven, [up the mount, at the base of 
which they were?]. In the Acts, (Acts i., 6 — 14,) it runs 
thus: — They therefore having assembled, asked him, say- 
ing, Lord, do you at this time, restore the kingdom to 
Israel? And he said to them, It is not yours to know the 
times or seasons, which the father has placed in his own 
authority; but, you shall receive power, the holy spirit 
having come to you; and you shall be witnesses tome in 
Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and to the 
extremity of the earth. And having said these things, 
they looking, he betook himself up, and a cloud inter- 
cepted him from their eyes. And thus they were looking 
earnestly towards heaven, he going or walking, and be- 
hold, two men stood near them in white clothing: and they 
said, Galilean men, why have you stood looking towards 
heaven? This Jesus, having faken himself up from you 
towards heaven, in like manner will come, as you beheld 
him going [or walking] towards heaven. Then they re- 
turned towards Jerusalem from the mountain called Olive, 
which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath's journey. And when 
they entered, they went up or ascended to the upper part 
of a house, where were waiting Peter and James, and 
John, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and 
Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon the zealot, and 

* Bethany lay at the foot of the Mount of Olives, on the eastern 
side. Alexander's Geography of the Bible p. 84. 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 75 

Judas of James; all these were continuing unanimously in 
prayer and in supplication, with their wives, and with 
Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. Mark 
says, (Mark xvi., 19,20.) Therefore the Lord, after hav- 
ing spoken to them, betook himself up towards heaven, 
and he sat at the right hand of God. And they, having 
gone forth, proclaimed every where, the Lord co-operat- 
ing, and confirming the narration by accompanying signs. 
John (John xx., 17,) mentions his allusion to the event 
thus: — Jesus says to her, Do not touch me; for I have not 
yet ascended to my father: but go to my brethren, and tell 
them. I ascend to my father and your father, and my God 
and your God. Matthew (Matt, xxviii., 20,) represents 
him as having said, " I am with you, all the days, until 
the end of the age." 

Hence, we conclude that no -evidence of an actual as- 
cension into heaven is extant concerning Christ; for even 
if there was, the intercepting cloud obstructed their vision, 
and they could not have seen him enter. It appears to us 
that he accompanied them from Jerusalem towards Betha- 
ny, about three fourths of a mile distant, [the village itself 
being about two miles from the city,] that he held some 
conversation with them, and then took his leave; that he 
ascended the mountain, they looking at him, until a mist 
precluded their sight; that two men addressed them, and 
assured them that he would again return; and that they 
thereupon returned to Jerusalem. His interview with 
Mary respecting an ascension, was at his first appearance 
to her. And if his unwillingness in the morning to be 
touched, argued a non-ascension to heaven, his desire to 
be touched in the evening of the same day, when he said, 
(Luke xxiv., 39,) " handle me and see that it is I," ra- 
ther argues that he had ascended during that day, and 
had returned: so also does the request to Thomas (John 
xx., 27,) after the eight days. Iioes it not then mean: — 
Detain me not now; I have not yet had time to commune 
with my father: but, go and tell my brethren that you have 



?6 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HHE,' 

seen me; and I will, in the mean time, commune with God 
in prayer and thanksgiving? The manner, in which they 
separated (Luke xxiv., 52,) from him, almost indicates an 
assurance of his speedy return to them; for having mani- 
fested affectionate regard to him, they returned to Jerusa- 
lem with great joy ; and they were, through all the day, in 
a devoted edifice, praising and blessing God. After this, 
they heralded in every direction a statement of the trans- 
actions, the Lord acting in concert with them, as he an- 
nounced in the " Lo, I am with you/' 

The evangelical allusion to this alleged event is very 
slight: Matthew being silent upon it; Mark merely men- 
tioning that he betook himself up towards heaven; Luke 
says that he went up towards heaven; and John, like Mat- 
thew, preserves silence. Not much stress is laid upon 
this; though, had it been a reality, it would have been 
more to the point of super-humanity than the egress from 
a sepulchre under the circumstances, that attended and 
followed Christ -5 s egress. The apostles might assert that 
they saw him before and after his resurrection; but, that 
implies not necessarily an intervening absolute death. — 
They unay have firmly believed he had been dead; but, 
just trace the narration, and you will find this belief based 
upon inference, similar to that of his sitting at the right 
liand of God. An ascension would have been totally 
different. If he had in very truth and reality ascended, 
in their immediate presence, they could have testified to 
and been certain of the fact; so could they with regard to 
the crucifixion, and to his resurrection, if they saw him 
affixed to the cross, and come out of the tomb, which lat- 
ter they did not*, but we may as well deduce the certainty 
of his death from his crucifixion and ascension as from his 
resurrection. * The preachers apparently adhered, with 
stubborn pertinacity, to the resurrection from the dead; 
but, their bare allusion #to the ascension induces us to be- 
lieve they did not invest it with such a halo of wonder as 



UR, BOOK OF DOGMAS, 

we do; and that they received it, in its proper light, as a 
temporary separation* resembling that when he announced 
himself to Mary Magdalene. We think that all these reli- 
gious wonders have gradually increased as they have roll- 
ed down the pyramid of centuries, like a precious stone 
descending some lofty snow-capped mountain, and increas- 
ing in bulk of snow until it has become an avalanche: and 
as the physical sun will in time dissolve the fair envelope 
and reveal the covered gem, so will the mental sun event- 
ually disclose the hidden nucleus of truth. 

But, let us inquire what parallels sacred and profane 
history may furnish to us. We are told in Genesis (Gen, 
v., 24,) that " Enoch walked with God, and he was not: 
for, God took him." This is assented to by Paul, (Heb. 
xi., 5,) who says " he was removed not to see death; and 
was not found, because God had removed him/' It was 
about 2973 B. C, according to Biblical chronology. He 
had lived 365 years, as it is written. About 850 B. C, if 
we may credit the second book of Kings, (2 Kings ii., 11,) 
"Elijah went up towards heaven by a whirlwind." As 
he was conversing with Elisha, they were parted. Fifty 
men sought three days, and found him not. It seems that 
they expected to find him on some mountain or in some 
valley. If we may rely on the Roman historian, Livy,^ 
and the Grecian biographer, Plutarch, # Romulus is said 
to have suddenly disappeared in a tempest, during a solar 
<eciipse, about 713 B. C, The patricians afterwards told 
the people that he was caught up to heaven, and many 
believed it, departing with satisfaction: others, however, 
doubted. Julius Proculus, a senator of great distinction 
and famed for sanctity of manners, who came from Alba 
with Romulus, and had been his faithful friend, made 
solemn oaths before all the people that Romulus met him, 
as he was travelling on the road, in a form more noble 

* Livy, lib. L, 4. * Plutarch in vita Romuli. 



78 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 

and august than ever, and entered into conversation with 
him. Plutarch nourished in the latter part of the first 
century; and Livy died near the commencement of it. — 
Herodotus * informs us that the Getae, the bravest and 
most upright of the Thracians, in his time, believed them- 
selves to be immortal ; and that whenever any one died, they 
believed he was removed to the presence of their god, Z am- 
mo lxis. This Zamolxis was a man, who flourished many 
years before Pythagoras. Having preached immortality to 
his guests, he withdrew himself from the sight of his coun- 
trymen, and resided for three years beneath the earth. His 
supposed death was lamented; and in the fourth year he 
again appeared among them, according to his prediction, 
about 600 B. C. We learn that, according to the popular 
acceptation, Enoch was walking with God, Elijah was 
conversing with Elisha, Romulus was reviewing his sol- 
diers, and Christ was blessing his disciples, respectively, 
when they disappeared. But, who saw either of them go 
into heaven? In other words, we not only ask " who 
shall declare his genean or birth"; but, who shall declare 
his thanaton or death, his anabiosin or resurrection, or 
his anabasin or ascent, in accordance with the general be- 
lief ? 

Here concludes our examination of the evangelical testi- 
mony; and we proceed to a recapitulation. 

* Herodotus lib. iw, sec. 93— -95 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 79 



RECAPITULATION. 



Our investigation has been as faithful as our limited 
abilities would allow. We have been told that Christ was 
affixed to the cross, and of the kind treatment rendered by 
the soldier in proffering such drink as he himself used in 
the army. This was received; and soon after, the victim 
to envy and persecution " gave up the ighost." He had 
been on the cross about three hours, when ordinary men 
lived thereon three or more days. They kindled no fire 
beneath to suffocate him; they let no wild beast devour 
him; they broke not his bones to disable him; they did 
nothing effectually to hasten his death. According to an 
alleged prophecy, a friendly soldier [at least, he had no 
grounds for enmity,] punctured his skin with a spear, 
which brought blood. Any other sharp instrument, large 
or small, could have done the same. He knew that he 
could not legally remain on the cross over night, in Judea. 
He also knew that Pilate was favorably inclined, and 
that Pilate commanded the soldiers, who were the over- 
seers and managers of the crucifixion. Pilate's doubts 
as to the reality of his death were readily quelled, when 
Joseph came for the body, which was surrendered with- 
out reluctance. This friend and secret disciple was ex- 
actly the appropriate man to take it away, dead or alive, 
without exciting the suspicion of the Jews; for, he was a 
member of the Sanhedrim. He and Nicodemus, (John 
iii., 1,) another Jewish ruler, wrapped it in linen with 
myrrh and aloes, probably together with some healing 
ointment, similar to that prepared by the women, (Luke 
xxiii., 56,) as Christ had once alluded to something of the 
kind for his burying. (John xii., 7.) He was deposited 
in Joseph's tomb. On the next day, the stone which 



80 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J 

was manageable by one man, was sealed, and a watch 
set. Early in the morning of the next day but one after 
his crucifixion, he was again among his acquaintances. 
When he was first recognised, he had evidently been 
out some time; for, he had procured clothing, and was 
thereby mistaken for the gardener of Joseph, in whose 
garden was the sepulchre. — (John xix., 41.) After 
that, he partook food with two of his disciples in, or 
near the village of Emmaus. When he had left them, 
they remembered his blessing and breaking the bread, 
which did not at the instant occur to them, as he was not 
expected, and concluded that it must have been he, ac- 
cording also to the women's report. In a few hours sub- 
sequent to this, while these two were communicating the 
intelligence to the chosen and others, he came among 
them, and they were terrified. They had finished their 
principal meal, which was taken about six or seven 
o'clock, P. M. He asked for something to eat; and they 
gave him a piece of broiled fish and of an honey-comb. 
This participation of refreshments twice within so short 
time, and their examination of him, prove him to have 
been neither a spirit, nor exempt from human nature's 
law of hunger. His travelling about twelve or fifteen 
miles, from Jerusalem to Emmaus and back, and consum- 
ing about the same time as the two disciples, prove him 
to have possessed locomotive powers not very dissimilar 
from those of humanity, and also to have been strong 
enough to roll back the tomb-stone. These considera- 
tions, together with that of his conversation, evinced a 
soundness of lungs incompatible with the idea of a peri- 
cardial thrust, but in perfect unison with that of a gentle 
incision, warranted by the evangelist, who would natural- 
ly, under such exciting circumstances and in his relation 
to the sufferer, magnify the matter as much as it would 
consistently bear, without the aid of physicians or episco- 
pal translators. The former would defeat the prophecy 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 81 

of a slight puncture, by endeavoring to prove a violent 
thrust of a spear; the latter would nullify the mild influ- 
ence of Christ over his disciple, and falsify nature, by 
endeavoring to convert a gentle touch into a cruel and 
inhuman thrust of the hand into the side. He was again 
among his disciples, after or within eight days, when he 
satisfied Thomas. And some time afterwards, he showed 
himself the third time to them, at the sea of Tiberias. He 
•was preparing a breakfast of broiled fish and bread. 
When they had breakfasted, (John xxi , 15,) [which the 
translators have metamorphosed into a dinner,] he con- 
tinued his conversation with them. And it was not till he 
had passed forty days with the apostles after his crucifix- 
ion, that he took his leave of them at Bethany. They 
were about one hundred and twenty in number. Thus, as 
generally viewed, closes the scene; — thus terminates 
the train of incidents, which superstition has chronicled 
in the catalogue of supernatural wonders, and illogically 
deduced therefrom an universal resurrection of bodies, 
but not on the third day of their death, which would be a 
fairer inference from that alleged event than an indeter- 
minate postponement; nor an ascension forty days after 
the same. Age has made these opinions, as it has many 
others, venerable; but no more true. We would have 
the liberal, the candid, sift them, as they have some of the 
already exploded dogmas, which were tenderly cherished 
for years. Nothing can be expected from the bigoted 
and the ungenerous. No truth shrinks from scrutiny. 
It rather invites the tests; and nothing is too sacred for 
their application. 

Now, what is the result of the investigation? That 
there is a marked deficiency of substantial evidence to es- 
tablish beyond a reasonable doubt, a point deemed indis- 
pensably essential to the security of human happiness. 
This deficiency clearly demonstrates its want of positive 
utility. And yet the truth of that point is most sincerely 
6 



82 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 

believed and held sacred by many: which tends to show 
that neither examination nor knowledge is requisite to 
superstitious belief; but, that a reliance upon the opinions 
of others, especially when they are represented as subsi- 
diary to the salvation of self, is the foundation of the 
greater portion of such belief in the world. — We have 
likewise seen how exceedingly slight and fragile is the 
basis, on which the teachers have grounded their admit- 
ted infallibility, in this particular case. Neither of the 
evangelists [and they were all liable to an erroneous im- 
pression in such a nice matter,] positively declares, in so 
many words, that Christ died on the cross, as they speak 
of absolute death in other parts of their gospels; and 
John alone asserts that his side was pierced. From these 
uncertain and meagre materials, the ingenious have nev- 
ertheless constructed a tower of credence, which the 
waves of reason would soon topple and demolish, were it 
not fortified by the adamantine wall of prejudice and 
superstition. And indeed, many of its turrets have been 
shattered by the well-aimed shafts of fearless inquiry, 
notwithstanding its beetling ramparts. 

Finally, though a survey of all the circumstances, — his 
crucifixion, his speedy loss of sense, his sepulture, his re- 
appearance, the conduct of his disciples, his journeying, 
his conversation, his hunger, and his ascent, may incline 
to persuade us that he swooned from the intense anguish; 
yet, it is far, very far from sufficient weight to convince a 
reasonable, investigating, and candid mind, that Jesus 
Christ actually died while affixed to the cross on mount 
Calvary. 

Thus have we passed over the four gospels for the ex- 
press purpose of learning what they will warrant any one 
to assert on their authority concerning this interesting 
subject. Our conclusion is obviously inevitable. And if 
we, in like manner, traverse the territory, the subsequent 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 83 

portions of the New Testament coincide with and cor- 
roborate this rational view. However arduous may be 
the attempts to pervert their sense, and to bend them 
to the support of a darling theory ; however ingenious 
may be the constructions imposed by the self-interested; 
and however plausible inferences may be unwarrantably 
deduced; the tenor of the narration, the history, the 
facts, will make their forcible appeals to every reasona- 
ble mind. Inasmuch as these conform to nature and com- 
ply with common sense, mankind will, to that degree, be 
radically convinced; conviction will be felt in the heart, 
and assented to by the intellect, as well as expressed by 
the lips. They are as directly addressed to every person 
of this age, as they were to the first reader of them; and 
for an unbiassed decision, they are presented to his rea- 
son, to his calm, cool, deliberate judgment, not to his ex- 
cited, phrenzied passion or exaggerating imagination, — 
to his thought, not to his fancy. Let us then muster some 
of the most prominent facts, and candidly inquire into 
their unavoidable implication. We will first look to 



THE ACTS. 



Peter informed (Acts iii., 26,) the Jews that God, hav- 
ing raised his son Jesus, sent him first to them blessing 
them in turning away every one of them from their in- 
iquities. This was at or after the day of Pentecost, ten 
days after the ascent. While the apostles were in prison, 
(Acts v., 18 — 20,) the angel of the Lord by night opened 
the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said, Go, 
stand and speak in the temple to the people, all the words 
of this life. And they, having heard, entered into the temple 
6* 



84 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J 

early in the morning and taught. While Philip (Acts viii., 
26 — 40,) was in the city of Samaria, the messenger of the 
Lord ordered him to arise and go toward the south; and he 
went. He saw a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, returning in 
his chariot from Jerusalem, whither he had come to wor- 
ship. Philip was directed by the Spirit to approach him; 
which he did, and announced Jesus to him. After the 
eunuch was baptized, the Spirit of the Lord caught away 
Philip, and he was found at Azotus; from whence he pro- 
ceeded to Cesarea. However these may be construed, we 
hasten to consider the conversion of Paul. 

" A young man," says Paley,* " who had signalized 
himself by his hostility to the profession, and had pro- 
cured a commission from the council at Jerusalem to 
seize any converted Jews whom he might find at Damas- 
cus, suddenly became a proselyte to the religion, which 
he was going about to extirpate." A few years, " at the 
most only seven or eight, perhaps only three or four after 
Christ's death,"* intervened, before Paui proceeded on his 
mission to Damascus; (A'cts xxii., 5,) and consequently, 
it was not until some time after the ascent that he was 
converted. He was born about two years | B. C, at 
Tarsus, a city three hundred miles from Nazareth. He 
had been (Acts xxii., 3,) " brought up in Jerusalem at the 
feet of Gamaliel;" and was his pupil. He had also learned 
to tie a tent-mal^er. Gamaliel (Acts v., 34,) was " a 
Pharisee, and a doctor of the law, had in reputation 
among all the people." Paul was then about forty years 
of age when he started on his persecuting tour for Da- 
mascus, a Syrian city little more than a hundred miles 
from Jerusalem. It appears that, as he approached the 
city, (Actsix., 3 — 2°2.) "suddenly there shined roundabout 

^Paley's Evidences of Christianity, Part i., 4. 

t Life of Christ and the Apostles by Rev. John Fleetwood, 
p. 328 ; — Quarto Edition. 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 85 

him a light from heaven; and he fell to the earth, and 
heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why perse- 
cutest thou me? And he said, who art thou, Lord? And 
the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. And 
he trembling and astonished, said, Lord, what wilt thou 
have me to do? And the Lord said to him, Arise, and go 
into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. 
And the men which journeyed with him, stood speechless, 
hearing the sound but seeing no man. And Saul arose from 
the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: 
but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Da- 
mascus. And he was three days without sight, and neither 
did eat nor drink. And there was a certain disciple at 
Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in 
a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. 
And the Lord said to him, Arise, and go into the street, 
which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas 
for one called Saul of Tarsus: for, behold he prayeth, and 
hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, 
and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his 
sight. Then answered Ananias, Lord, I have heard by 
many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy 
saints at Jerusalem: and here he hath authority from the 
chief priests, to bind all that call on thy name. But the 
Lord said to him, Go thy way : for he is a chosen vessel to 
me to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and 
the children of Israel: for I will show him how great 
things he must suffer for my name's sake. And Ananias 
went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his 
hands on him, said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, 
that appeared to thee in the way as thou earnest, hath sent 
me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with 
the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes 
as it had been scales; and he received sight forthwith, and 
arose, and was baptized. Then was Saul certain days 
with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straight- 



86 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J 

way he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the 
Son of God. Bat Saul increased the more in strength, 
and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, prov- 
ing that this is very Christ." " And when Saul was come 
to Jerusalem, he essayed to join himself to the disciples; 
but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he 
was a disciple. But Barnabas took him and brought him 
to the apostles, and declared to them how he had seen the 
Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how 
he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. " 
(Acts ix., 26, 27.) It was three years (Gal. i., 18,) after 
Paul's conversion, that Barnabas thus introduced him. — 
The brethren subsequently brought him down to Cesarea, 
and sent him forth to Tarsus. 

This account, given by Luke, one of the evangelists and 
a companion of Paul, informs us that Paul actually heard 
the voice of Jesus. In another passage, (Acts xxii., 9,) it 
farther appears that " they who were with him saw indeed 
the light, and were afraid, but heard not the voice of him 
that spoke to him," and that they were all prostrated to 
the earth. (Acts xxvi., 14.) The shock was evidently 
more severe upon his fellow-travellers, depriving them of 
hearing as well as of sight. The reason why they saw no 
man, was because they were blinded " by the glory of the 
light." (Acts xxii., 11.) It is perfectly natural, and ab- 
solutely conclusive. And not only did he hear a voice, 
but it was in the Hebrew language; (Acts xxvi., 14,) and 
Paul conversed with him at considerable length. Farther 
mention (Acts xxvi., 16,) of the address of Christ is given, 
which expressly asserts that he appeared to Paul at that 
time, thus; "Rise, and stand upon thy feet: for, I have 
appeared to thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister 
and a witness, both of these things which thou hast seen, 
and of those things in the which I will appear to thee, de- 
livering thee from the people and the Gentiles, to whom 
now I send thee." This accurately corresponds with his 



0R 3 BOOK OF DOGMAS. 87 

declaration to Ananias, that Paul was his chosen vessel to 
the Gentiles ;" and developes how he knew Paul was in 
the house of Judas, praying. It seems that Paul was led 
by the hand of some one of them, who were near him; and 
•as he was blind, he could not see by whom; neither could 
his fellow-travellers, very well; for, (Matt, xv., 14,)*' if 
the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." 
And it is by no means likely that all the men, who accom- 
panied him, took hold of his hand to lead him. Now, who 
led him into the city to the house of Judas? Jesus knew 
he was there; for, he appeared to Ananias, and directed 
him to go to that house, and inquire for Paul. Ananias 
went, and " said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, who 
appeared to thee in the way, hath sent me." This latter 
conversation and conduct transpired after he had entered 
the city. Ananias was one of the disciples that resided 
at Damascus. (Acts ix., 10.) Judas was also a disciple, 
doubtless the same with J tide, a brother of James, (Acts 
i., 13,) and one of Christ's brethren. (Mat. xiii., 55.) 
Among other places, he (Judas) preached in Syria, in 
which country is Damascus.* — Again, "Is not this the 
carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary ? and his 
brethren, James and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?" 
Hence, we perceive why he was conducted to the house 
of Judas. — Even Barnabas, another disciple, three years 
afterwards, (i brought Paul to the apostles, and declared 
to them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he 
had spoken to him." (Acts ix., 27.) Now, what can prove 
more conclusively that Christ was really living, and ap- 
peared to Paul? We do not deny that he sincerely be- 
lieved Christ had been dead; for, such was the common 
belief of. the Jews; but, belief is not knowledge. This 
very astounding fact of hearing and conversing with an 
individual, whom he believed to have died, and being con- 

* Fleetwood's Lives of the Apostles, p. 380. 



• 



88 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 

vinced of his existence, not only by the assertions of the 
disciples, but also by his own experience, was enough to 
convert the enthusiastic Paul or any other roan. 

The Lord's appearance to Cornelius, the centurion, was 
in this manner: (Acts x., 1 — 33,) About three o'clock^ 
P. M.j he saw in a vision clearly a messenger of God com- 
ing in to him, and saying, Cornelius. He asked, what is 
it, Lord? He was then told to send men to Joppa, about 
twenty-five miles distant from Cesarea, for Simon Peter to 
come and give him instructions. The .messenger left 
him; and he proceeded to obey the orders. About twelve 
o'clock the next day, the men reached Peter's place of 
residence; near which hour also Peter had a conversa- 
tion with the Lord; and while he was thinking " of the 
vision, the Spirit said to him, Three men seek thee; arise, 
and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing; 
for, J have sent them. Peter accordingly went." The 
Spirit identities himself as the individual who despatched 
the messengers; and he could speak. In the 30th verse, 
Cornelius informs us that this angel or messenger was a 
man, and he arrived at Peter's house perhaps a little before 
them, — in season to warn him not to call any one common 
or unclean. Whether Peter's trance and Cornelius 5 vis- 
ion were such as alleged, is not altogether certain. Peter 
regarded his release from prison by an angel (Acts xii., 
9,) as a vision, and did not know that it was a reality. 
And when Rhoda, who knew his voice, announced that he 
was knocking at the gate, they exclaimed, It is his angel. 
In this instance, Peter was mistaken; why not in the 
other? And if he was, was not Cornelius, or their nar- 
rators, transcribers, or translators, liable to error also? 
Who was this Spirit? — When Peter reached Jerusalem, 
the apostles called him to account for eating with the Gen- 
tiles; and he explained himself to their satisfaction. 
Cornelius had been partially cleansed; for, "he prayed 
to God always." And in connection with this, we would 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 89 

ask, who was the messenger that directed Philip toward 
the south, and who accompanied him to Azotus? This 
and Paul's transportation may explain how he happened 
to be in Cesarea with Cornelius; for, Philip went thither, 
— so did Paul. After the alleged resurrection, believing 
it literally as they apparently did, they may have denom- 
inated Christ a Spirit; for before his crucifixion, he was 
deemed to be such, (Mark vi., 49,) as well as soon after- 
wards. (Luke xxiv., 37.) John's .paracletos is translated 
in one place (John xiv.. 26,) "Comforter;" in another, 
(I. Johnii., 1,) "Advocate;" and is pronounced by him 
to be identical with the Holy Spirit, (John xiv., 26,) 
and to be Jesus Christ. (1 John ii., 1.) In the Rev- 
elation, we find, " He that hath an ear let him hear 
what the Spirit saith unto the churches." Hence we 
perceive nothing to prevent our regarding " Spirit," 
in many passages, as synonymous with "Christ." 
Nor should we be surprised to find the word Ka- 
rion, meaning " of the Lord," translated "of God," 
and thereby representing Christ as God. Thus, (Acts 
xx., 28,) " Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock 
over which the Holy Ghost has made you overseers, to 
feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with 
his own blood." Here, Jesus is held forth either as the 
Holy Ghost or as God. From all these considerations, 
can we believe otherwise than that Christ was meant by 
" the Spirit " in those and other scriptural verses? — Who 
also was the messenger or angel (Acts xii., 7,) that visit- 
ed Peter while in prison, and addressed him with author- 
ity, releasing him from his chains? A perusal of the nar- 
ration may unravel it. While the inmates of the house 
were looking out with astonishment at Peter, who was 
knocking, he beckoned forthemto keep silence, and " de- 
clared to them how the Lord had brought him out of 
prison." He again repaired to Cesarea. — We are told 
(Acts xiii.j 2,) that as the prophets and teachers in the 



90 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 

church at Antioch " ministered to the Lord, the Holy 
Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work 
whereunto I have called them. So they, being sent forth 
by the Holy Ghost, departed to Seleucia." The Holy 
Ghost appears to be a person, here. And an injunction, 
uttered probably at the same time to Barnabas and Saul, 
proves to have been commanded by the Lord, thus, (Acts 
xiii., 47,) " I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles." 
— They also " commended the elders, whom they had or- 
dained, to the Lord." (Acts xiv., 23.) — When Paul and 
Silas, in the course of their travels, had reached Thessa- 
lonica, they were accused (Acts xvii., 7,) of assert- 
ing, besides Caesar, the existence of " another king, one 
Jesus. "— Soon after that, Paul reached Corinth, where he 
remained about eighteen months. (Acts xviii. 4 — 11.) 
While there, he preached in the synagogues, calling Je- 
sus Christ to witness, to which the Jews opposed them- 
selves. He however tarried with the chief ruler of the 
synagogue. Here Christ addressed him in the night, tell- 
ing him to fear not, but to speak, and to hold not his peace; 
" for, I am with thee. And no man shall set on thee to 
hurt thee; for, I have much people in this city." That 
is, my friends, who are numerous here, will protect you 
against violence. — While he was in Ephesus, there were 
also certain exorcists there, endeavoring to cast out evil 
spirits by the name of Christ. One of the spirits declared 
his knowledge of Christ, thus: (Acts xix., 15,) " Jesus I 
know, and Paul I know; but, who are ye?" It appears 
that the man then knew him; for, he used the present 
tense, and the same phraseology, as he did concerning 
Paul. — At Miletus, he addressed (Acts xx., 22 — 24,) the 
.elders of the Ephesian church, in this manner: " I go 
bound in the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things 
that shall befal me there, save that the Holy Ghost wit- 
nesseth in every city, saying, That bonds and afflictions 
abide me." He also alludes to " the ministry he received 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 91 

of the Lord Jesus." Compare, " for, I will show 
him (Paul) how great things he must suffer for my 
name's sake." (Acts ix., 16,) — When he had been some 
days in Jerusalem, he was apprehended and bound. In 
his defence, he divulged more of his conversation with 
Ananias, who told (Acts xxii., 14,) him that " God had 
chosen him, that he should see that Just One, and should 
hear the voice of his mouth;" also, more of his conversa- 
tion with Christ. The night but one (Acts xxiii., 11,) 
following, " the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good 
cheer, Paul; for, as thou hast testified of me in Jerusa- 
lem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome." At his ar- 
raignment before Festus, he was accused of having af- 
firmed one Jesus who was dead, to be alive. (Acts xxv., 
19.) From thence he went to Rome. — All these passages 
are certainly fraught with eloquent significance. To 
press the subject as far as the narration warrants, would 
be to transcribe the whole of the enumerated Acts. Ac- 
cording to Lardner, they were recorded at Greece about 
A. D. 64.* 

As we advance, many expressions will be observed, 
which are difficult to be understood in any other than a 
literal sense. Such of these as relate to *our subject 
rather indicate that Christ was for some years after the 
ascent alive on the earth, and was seen by his disciples. 
Whether he was seen by all, the scant materials handed 
down will not enable us to determine. They travelled in 
various directions to disseminate the gospel doctrines, and 
soon spread them over the then known world. It is not a 
matter of great wonder that the fact of his every appear- 
ance is not expressly and numerically declared; for, of 
course, it became an old story with his few intimate ac- 
quaintances. At first, it was wonderful; but, frequency 

* See Appendix D. 



92 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 

naturally diminished the novelty. And it must be remem- 
bered, that these writings purport to be by his followers, 
who would not be likely to harp forever on a fact (viz., his 
existence,) familiarly known to them. Hence, the indi- 
rect allusions, which presume their knowledge of it. 
Besides, we should not forget that these writings have 
been sifted by the church and its interested sectarian 
bishops; while the best we can say is that but a part of 
the original have descended to us, — many (Luke i., 1,) 
having been lost. With these preliminary remarks, we 
begin our brief examination of the 



EPISTLES. 



In almost all these, will be found interspersed passages 
of a similar import. Taking a few of them, in order, as 
they stand in the collection, we learn that Paul thus wrote 
to the Romans: (Rom. vi., 10,) "Knowing that Christ, 
being raised from the dead, dieth no more; for, in that he 
died, he died unto sin once; but, in that he liveth, he liv- 
eth unto God." — Also, (Rom. xiv., 9,) " For to this end 
Christ both died, and rose, and revived." — Again, (Rom. 
xiv., 14,) " I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, 
that nothing is unclean of itself." — To the Corinthians, he 
wrote, (1. Cor. i., 17, and iv., 19,) "Christ sent me not 
to baptise, but to preach the gospel." — And " I will come 
to you shortly, if the Lord be willing." — And, (I Cor. 
vii., 10,) "Unto the married I command, yet not I, but 
the Lord." — He also makes this significant inquiry, (1 
Cor. ix. 1,) "Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" 
— It farther appears he had had other conversation with 
Christ, in which he heard an account (1 Cor. xi., 23,) of 
certain transactions immediately preceding the crucifixion, 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 93 

thus: " J have received of the Lord that which also I de- 
livered to you, that the Lord Jesus, the night in which 
he was betrayed, took bread: and when he had given 
thanks, he broke it and said, Take, eat; this is ray body." 
—We learn likewise (1 Cor. xv., 5—8,) that Christ " was 
seen by Cephas, then by the twelve: after that he was 
seen by above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the 
greater part remain unto this present, but some are 
fallen asleep. After that, he was seen by James: then 
by all the apostles. And last of ail he was seen by me also, 
as by one born out of due time." If he appeared to the 
twelve, as Paul asserted, it must have been after Matthias 
was added,— after the ascent. His appearance to James 
is omitted in the gospels; and we find no evangelical 
specification of that to the five hundred. James was a 
son of Joseph, (Matt, xiii., 55,) and one of Christ's breth- 
ren. He was made bishop of Jerusalem,* some time af- 
ter that appearance to him; and died twenty-four years 
after the ascent, aged 95. He is alluded (Gal. i., 19,) to 
by Paul as "the Lord's brother." He and Peter were 
the only apostles Paul saw when he went to Jerusalem, 
(Gal. i., 19,) at which visit he doubtless obtained his in- 
formation. Christ's subsequent appearances, if not some 
of the above, must have been posterior to the ascent.— 
Again, Paul said, (2 Cor. v., 16,) "Though we have 
known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we 
him no more."— And, (2 Cor. xiii., 4,) " Though he was 
crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of 
God."— Once more, (1 Cor. xvi., 7,) " I trust to tarry a 
while with you, if the Lord permit."— These passages 
are replete with meaning. They furnish us, so far as 
fragments can, # strong evidence of what Paul witnessed. 
Their import cannot candidly be mistaken.— To the Gala- 
tians, he wrote, (Gal. i. } 12,) "I neither received the 

^Fleetwood's Lives of the Apostles, p. 376. 



94 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; 

gospel of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revela- 
tion of Jesus Christ." [I received it not second-handed.] 
— Again, (Gal. iii,, 1,) " O foolish Galatians, who hath 
bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before 
whose eyes the crucified Jesus Christ hath been evidently 
set forth among you?" — To the Ephesians. while he was 
at Rome, in April, A. D. 61, he wrote, (Eph. iv., 7, 8,) 
c ' Unto every one of us is given grace according to the 
measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, [in 
the present tense,] when he ascended on high, [towards 
the summit,] he led captivity captive, and gave gifts to 
men." — To the Philippians, the next year, he wrote, 
(Phil, i., 23,) (i I am in a strait betwixt two, having a de- 
sire to depart, and to be with Christ, which is far better." 
— To the Thessalonians, while he was at Corinth, A. D. 
52, he wrote, (1 Thes. iv., 15,) " This we say unto you by 
the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain 
unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them which 
are asleep." — To Timothy, he wrote, (2 Tim. iv., 16, 17,) 
Ci At my first answer no one stood with me. Notwith- 
standing, the Lord stood near me, and strengthened me." 
— To the Hebrews, while he was at Rome or elsewhere 
in Italy, A. D. 63, he wrote, (Heb. ii., 9,) " We see Jesus, 
who was made a little lower than the angels, crowned 
with glory and honor." — And, (Heb. iv., 14, 15,) " We 
have a great high priest, who passed into the heavens, 
Jesus the son of God. For, we have not an high priest 
which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmi- 
ties." — St. John, while at Ephesus, A. D. 80, wrote thus, 
(1 John ii., 13,) {i I write to you, fathers, because ye have 
known him from the beginning." — And so late as A. D. 
96, at Ephesus, John was prompted to write a declaration 
made to him, (Rev. i., 11, 18,) "I am Alpha and Omega, 
the beginning and the ending." — " I am he that liveth, and 
was dead." — (Rev. xxii., 16,) " I, Jesus, sent my messen- 
ger to testify to you." — Could all this have been entirely 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 95 

visionary? It must have been, were Christ not alive. 
Was it not rather, a portion of it at least, a reality ? — 
These indicate a series of appearances, or a long compan- 
ionship with Paul. For, it is no reason that Christ was 
not on earth, because every interview with him was not 
particularized. The evangelists omitted the mention of 
his appearances to the twelve, to the five hundred, to 
James, and to Paul. If then these, which occurred so 
soon after the resurrection, were unrecorded, why should 
we expect them to mention others of later occurrence? It 
certainly can no more be justly doubted that he was seen 
oftener than is specified in the epistles, because they do 
not explicitly proclaim the fact, than that he was seen 
oftener than is recorded in the gospels, because the fact is 
there unmentioned; for, as above, we have two or three 
enumerated appearances not contained in the evangelical 
writings. What else then can be reasonably inferred 
from the whole than that Jesus was yet alive, and among 
his disciples and acquaintances? Especially too, when 
we consider that Paul unqualifiedly asserts (Acts xiii., 
37,) that "he whom God raised again, saw no corrup- 
tion!" What other deduction can be drawn from the 
premises? We know that .the body, immediately at its 
death, begins to decompose. Could Christ then have ac- 
tually died, according even to this single declaration? 
And do not all our facts, indiscriminately taken, prove 
that he was alive and seen after the ascent? If they do 
not, we would honestly ask, what do they prove? Either 
Paul meant what he wrote, or he did not: if he did not, 
no reliance is to be reposed in him, — he is a dead letter; 
if he did, and wrote truth, Jesus . Christ "was visible for 
years after the alleged ascension. 

Let us now prosecute our inquiry another step, and 
consult the ancient fathers. 



96 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J 



ANCIENT FATHERS. 



What says St. Ambrose,* who died near the close of 
the fourth century? He " tells us that when the people 
perceived the danger to which St. Peter was now ex- 
posed, they prayed him to quit Rome, and repair for a 
while to some secure retreat, that his life might be pre- 
served for the benefit of the church. Peter, with great 
reluctance, yielded to their entreaties, and made his es- 
cape by night; but, as he passed the gate, he was met by 
a person in the form of his great and beloved Master; and 
on his asking him whither he was going, answered, ' To 
Rome, to be crucified a second time;' which Peter taking 
for a reproof of his cowardice, returned again into the 
city, and was soon after apprehended, and cast, together 
with St. Paul, into the Mamertine prison. There they were 
confined eight or nine months, and spent their time in the 
exercises of religion, especially in preaching to the pris- 
oners, and those who resorted to them. During this con- 
finement, it is generally thought, St Peter wrote the 
second epistle to the dispersed Jews." This was about 
A. D. 66.+ He and Paul were condemned by Nero, about 
two years before that tyrant's suicide. This occurrence 
was about three years after Paul wrote his last epistle 
from Rome, according to Lardner's computations;! and 
if recorded by him, must have been in some subsequent 
communication, not now extant. 

Shortly after, at the close of Nero's reign, we are told 

* Fleetwood's Lives of the Apostles, p.*325. 
t Supplement to the Credibility, vol. iii. ; p. 4. 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 97 

by Eusebias* who lived in the days of Constantine, near 
the end of the third and the commencement of the fourth 
centuries, St. Mark, who had been sent by Peter to preach 
in Alexandria, continued laboring in the cause for some 
years. Finally, however, "the inhabitants, about- the 
time of Easter, when they were celebrating the solemni- 
ties of Serapis, tumultously entered the church, forced St. 
Mark, then performing the divine service, from thence; 
and binding his feet with cords, dragged him through the 
streets, to a precipice near the sea, leaving him there in a 
lonesome prison for that night; but, his great and beloved 
Master appeared to him in a vision, comforting and en- 
couraging his soul under the ruins of his shattered body." 
Whether this account be true or not, our readers can 
judge as well as we. If Eusebius is unworthy of confi- 
dence, almost all the ecclesiastical history of the first three 
or four centuries rests upon a frail foundation; for, he 
was the chief historian of that period: others have extract- 
ed from him as from a fountain. One thing is quite cer- 
tain, — that there was a channel of communication be- 
tween Rome and Alexandria; for, Titus embarked at the 
latter city for the former, after he had besieged Jerusa- 
lem. 

In addition to all this, enough in itself to establish our 
position as correct, in any reasonable mind, we would ad- 
duce the evidence of Papias,| who died A. P. 116, and 
is said to have been acquainted with John. He was one 
of the apostolic fathers. His testimony corroborates what 
we have advanced. He declared that Jesus Christ lived 
to be a very old man, and died in the bosom of his own fam- 
ily. Knowing that fact, he deemed the circumstance of 
his death by crucifixion improbable. — And, if we can col- 

* Fleetwoods Lives of the Apostles, quarto edition, p. 382. 
fEuseb. Ecc. Hist. lib. 3. 



98 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 

lect aught from St. John's assertion, (Rev. i., 13, 14,) we 
have another coincident argument, confirming Papias, and 
strengthening our ground. John says, " I saw in the 
midst of the seven candlesticks, one like the Son of man, 
clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about 
the paps with a golden girdle. His head arid his hairs 
were white like wool, as white as snow.' So far, the 
representation accords with nature: he then launches into 
the unknown. Can any one deny that John had no sub- 
stantial basis to build his assertions upon? Were they 
altogether imaginary? When Christ was crucified, he 
was comparatively young, and far from being grey; and 
an entrance into heaven is understood rather to renew a 
person's youth than to advance his age. Hence, a vision 
like the above, without foundation, would not comport 
with the Biblical ideas. Is not the probable and reasona- 
ble inference, therefore, that he actually saw Christ, while 
a venerable, hoary-headed sage, as represented by 
Papias? It may be well to state that this Revelation was 
written A. D. 96. 

It is in this manner that all the circumstances so admi- 
rably harmonize, that it seems difficult to doubt their im- 
port. And none would presume to doubt it, if they re- 
garded the Bible as a mass of writings to be judged by 
human reason, rather than as a magazine of ghost stories, 
to be adopted without examination, — to be literally swal- 
lowed without being masticated. Instead of this, they 
understand it to impart what they wish it to impart, and 
not what it does, in reality. They see in it what others 
declare is in it; as is frequently done in fixing the conjec- 
tured resemblance of a picture, to which all adherents 
who are told of the standard will agree, while the un- 
moulded, original, independent opinions will differ from 
them, and detect the true likeness. Preconceived or 
prereceived notions wield a tremendous influence over 
one searching the scriptures. They almost, if we may 
be allowed the expression, put the words in the Bible's 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 99 

own mouth, and make them the mere echoes of manufac- 
tured sentiments, instead of granting it the liberty to 
speak for itself. A glance at the various sectarian meth- 
ods employed in explaining its tenor, according to their 
respective views, established by some one or more men, 
will exemplify this. Such dogmas must be founded on a 
distrust of the power of truth. Truth is simple, modest: 
it needs no pompous parade to usher it into a man's cre- 
dence. Its irresistible advocate responds to its utterance, 
and seizes it with a gigantic grasp soon as it enters the 
heart. Its acceptance is belief; its superficial rejection 
is unbelief: the one meets approval; the other encounters 
disapprobation. And upon this is based the often pervert- 
ed axiom, that "he who believes [the truth] shall be 
saved; and he who believes not shall be condemned;" for, 
he acts in accordance with his belief, and corresponding 
consequences naturally attend his conduct. A person 
then who requires a prodigy to prove a truth's reality, 
has not full confidence in the intrinsic force of that truth. 
We leave this for the purpose of considering the float- 
ing doctrine of the 



SECOND ADVENT. 



It may appear incongruous that, at the same time Paul 
is strongly intimating and occasionally asserting the ac- 
tual existence of Christ long after his alleged death, he is 
also continually speaking of his coming. But, it is no 
more incongruous than some other kindred points in the 
Bible appear when taken in an unconnected, unqualified 
sense. If we carefully consult the several parts as con- 
stituting a whole, — as rays converging from different di- 
rections to a common focus, the main object of their writ- 

7* 



100 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J 

ing and preaching; and remember that but scant materials 
of the original accounts have reached us, — more than 
fifty gospels and epistles which were extant in the first four 
centuries being lost, and such as we have having suffered 
much perversion by interpolations, mutilations, transcript 
errors, mistranslations, &.c, we shall willingly admit that 
they agree as well as can be reasonably expected of them 
under the circumstances. Then add to this, that every 
reader is indoctrinated with a certain view of the Bible in 
his youth, so that when he arrives at the years of discre- 
tion, he is apt to conform his interpretation of it to the 
standard already planted in his mind; and should he have 
courage to begin to investigate for himself, he would 
rather incline towards the old track. In accordance with 
the manner of the sects, he selects some prominent pas- 
sage as the basis, and then bends all the rest to square 
with that. Should we tell him that, if our sources can be 
depended on, we have traced Christ from Samaria to Azo- 
tus, to Damascus, to Cesarea, to Joppa, to Rome, to 
Alexandria, and it may be to Ephesus or Patmos, where 
John, his favorite disciple, wrote the Revelation at an ad- 
vanced stage of life, he would be apt to summarily ex- 
clude it as a dangerous heresy. But, to return from this 
rambling digression. 

The key to his second coming, so often alluded to in the 
.epistles, may be found in the gospels of Matthew, (Matt, 
xxiv., 3 — 51, and xxv. } 31 — 46,) Mark, (Mark xiii.,) and 
Luke, (Luke xvii., 20 — 37.) His disciples came to him 
privately, as he sat upon the mount of Olives, saying, 
What shall be the sign of thy coming? (Matt, xxiv.) 
Among other answers, he gave the following, — " As the 
lightning cometh out of the East and shineth even to the 
West, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." — 
30 v., " And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man 
in heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth 
mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 101 

clouds of heaven with power and great glory." — 33 v., 
" So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know* 
that it is near, ercnat the doors." — 37 v., "As the days of 
Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man 
be." — 42 v., " Watch therefore; for, ye know not what 
hour your Lord doth come." — 44 v., "Therefore, be ye 
also ready; for, in such an hour as ye think not, the Son 
of man cometh." — In xxv., 31, " When the Son of man 
shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, 
then shall he sit upon the throne in his glory." — They 
were assured that that generation should not pass till all 
those things were fulfilled; (Matt, xxiv., 34,) and that pre- 
viously to his coming in this manner, the gospel should be 
preached in all the world, and then should the end come; 
(Matt, xxiv., 14,) also, that false Christs and false proph- 
ets should arise: (Matt, xxiv., 24,) and farther, that he 
himself did not know on what day it would occur. (Mark 
xiii., 32.) 

He had intimated these things to them before, (Matt. 
xvi., 27, 28,) — " The Son of man shall come in the glory 
of his Father, with his angels. Verily, I say to you, 
There be some standing here, which shall not taste of 
death, till they see the Son of man coming in his king- 
dom." — He likewise made a similar declaration in the 
presence of the Jewish council, when the high priest ad- 
jured him to tell if he were the Christ, (Matt, xxvi., 64,) 
the Son of God; " Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man 
sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the 
clouds of heaven." 

All these expressions seem to refer to more ancient 
ones. Isaiah predicted (Isaiah xxiv., 21, and xiii., 10,) 
what "shall come to pass in that day." " The stars of 
heaven shall not give their light; the sun shall be dark- 
ened; the moon shall not shine," &c. Daniel (Dan. 
vii., 13,) saw in a vision "one like the Son of man 
come with the clouds of heaven." And Malachi (Mai. 



102 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; 

iv., 1, 5,) said, " Behold the day cometh that shall burn 
«s an oven, saith the Lord;" and "I will send you 
Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and 
dreadful day of the Lord." Likewise "Enoch, the 
seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, Behold the Lord 
cometh with ten thousand of his saints." (Jude 14.) 

It was then natural for the disciples, so fast as they be- 
lieved their Teacher, to be on the watch expecting this 
great event. And St. Paul especially, so well read as he 
was in the law and prophecies, must have been in posses- 
sion of all these facts; and hence we find that he, as well 
as the others, lays considerable stress upon it throughout 
the epistles, believing, as it is said they did, that Christ 
died, rose again, ascended to heaven, and sat on the right 
hand of God. To the Thessalonians, A. D. 52, he wrote, 
(1 Thes. iv., 15 — 17,) " This we say to you by the word 
of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain to the 
coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them which are 
asleep; for, the Lord himself shall descend from heaven 
with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the 
trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then 
we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together 
with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air, and 
so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore, comfort 
one another with these words. But of the times and sea- 
sons, ye have no need that I write to you; for, yourselves 
know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a 
thief in the night."— To Timothy, (1 Tim. vi., 14,) A. D. 
56, he gave directions to " keep the commandment until 
the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ." — In the next 
year, in his letter to the Corinthians, (2 Cor. i., 14,) he 
alludes to "the day of the Lord Jesus." — He reminded 
the Romans, (Rom. xiit., 12,) Feb., A. D. 58, that "the 
day is at hand:" and he intimated it to the Ephesians, 
(Eph. iv., 30,) April, A. D. 61, under the name of "the 
day of redemption." — The following year, he mentioned 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 103 

the same, two or three times, in his epistle to the Philip- 
pians. He declared (2 Thes. ii., 7,) to the Thessalonia'ns 
that the mystery of iniquity already worked, and tp the 
Colossians (Coios. i., 23,) that the gospel was preached 
to every creature under heaven; and hence, these being 
two of the signs (Matt, xxiv., 12 and 14,) to precede the 
" end of the world " or the coming of Christ or the day 
of the Lord, all which the apostles evidently believed 
were to be of simultaneous occurrence, Paul numbers 
himself among those, who were to meet the Lord in the 
air; and it also identifies the source of their doctrine and 
belief. — James, (James v., 7, 8,) in his epistle to the 
twelve tribes, about A. D. 61 or 62, enjoins them to " be 
patient to the coming of the Lord," and he asserts that 
"the coming of the Lord draweth nigh." — And Peter, 
(2 Peter i., 16, 17,) A. D. 64, seems to have considered 
the transfiguration as a type of the expected coming, thus: 
"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, 
when we made known to you the power and coming of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye witnesses of his 
majesty; for he received from God the Father honor and 
glory, when there came such a voice to him from the ex- 
cellent glory, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well 
pleased." He was one of the three spectators of that 
splendid scene. (Matt, xvii., 1.) — He also furnishes an- 
other mark of identity (Matt, xxiv., 43 and 44,) to the 
above, in the expression, " the day of the Lord will come 
as a thief in the night;" (2 Peter iii., 10, 13,) and goes on 
with a description, saying, that " the heavens shall pass 
away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with 
fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein 
shall be burned up. Nevertheless we, according to his 
promise, look for new heavens, and a new earth." Peter 
was then in Rome; and likewise, when he wrote (1 Peter 
iv., 7,) " the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore 
* sober, and watch to prayer." — Even an indirect identifi- 



104 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; 

cation of the source of their sentiments is involved in the 
allusion by Jude, (Jude 18,) A. D. 65, that " there should 
be mockers [deceivers] in the last time." (Matt, xxiv., 5, 
and 24.) — In A. D. 80, or ten years after the destruction of 
Jerusalem, St. John while at Ephesus dwells on the same 
topic. He was then pretty well advanced in age; and 
doubtless, bore in mind the expression of Christ to Peter 
after the resurrection, recorded in his own gospel, (John 
xxi., 22,) A. D. 68, <c If I will that he [John] tarry till I 
come, what is that to thee?" He was then also near the 
close of that generation, before the obliteration of which 
(Matt, xxiv., 34,) he believed the event was to transpire; 
and hence his sanguine declaration, (1 John ii., 18, 28,) 
4 c It is the last time : and as ye have heard that Anti-Christ 
shall <come, even now are there many Anti-Christs: where- 
by we know that it is the last time." — "And now, little 
children, abide in him; that when he shall appear, we may 
have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his 
coming." — " Beloved, we know that, when he shall ap- 
pear, we shall be like him; for, we shall see him as he 
is." (1 John iii., 2.) — And in nine or ten years afterwards, 
he wrote, (2 John, 7,) " Many deceivers are entered into 
the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in 
the flesh. This is a deceiver and an Anti-Christ." See in 
connection with these passages, Matthew xxiv., 5 and 24. 
— He likewise doubtless remembered the promise, (John 
xiv., 2 and 3,) " I go to prepare a place for you. 
And if I go and prepare a place for you, 1 will come 
again, and receive you to myself; that where I am, 
ye may be also;" as well as the assertion made by him 
at the end of the last supper, " I will not drink henceforth 
of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it 
new with you in my Father's kingdom." (Mat.,xxvi., 29.) 
— Once more, in A. D. 95 or 96, near the expiration of 
John's life, who died at the age of 97, he wrote at Ephe- 
sus or Patmos, the revelation of Christ concerning events ' 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 105 

shortly to come to pass, (Rev. i., 1,) in which among 
ether things he said, (Rev. i., 7,) "Behold, he cometh 
with clouds; and every eye shall see him; and they that 
pierced him; and all kindreds of the earth shall wail be- 
cause of him." This partially corresponds with Mat- 
thew, (Matt, xxiv., 30,) " Then shall all the tribes of the 
earth mourn:" especially if we consider the original 
Greek in the latter, tote kopsontai pasai ai phulai tes ges, 
Izai opsontai ton uion tou anthropou erchomenon epi ton ne- 
phelon tou ouranou; and that in the former, erchetai meta 
ton nephelon — kai kopsontai epi anion pasai ai phulai tes 
ges. It will be obvious to any one making the compari- 
son, that the words translated " kindred " and " wail," in 
the one, are translated "tribes" and "mourn," in the 
other; and are precisely the same in both, in the original: 
the two passages also otherwise bear a strong resem- 
blance, and again identify the source of John's views in 
the matter. Besides, he wrote his Revelation more than 
twenty years after the destruction of Jerusalem. — Again, 
John asserted (Rev. xxii., 20,) that " he which testifieth 
these things, saith, surely, I come quickly." 

These are but specimens of the whole tenor of the epis- 
tles on this point: they abound in such. Do they not all 
tend to show the implicit confidence and expectation of the 
apostles with regard to a coming at some future period, 
and which to them did not appear to be at a great dis- 
tance? It was evidently a coming to be attended with 
stupendous magnificence; and. not by any means demon- 
strating that Christ was not then on earth; for, they be- 
gan to anticipate his appearance to restore the kingdom 
to Israel, soon after his ascent; and he announced his be- 
lief of it, before the crucifixion. The Old Testament 
seems to have been the suggester of these sentiments to 

CO 

him, as well as that of the appellation "Son of Man," 
which he apparently adopted. Balaam said to Balak, 
(Num. xxiii., 19,) "God is not a man, that he should lie; 



106 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 

nor the Son of man, that he should repent." God and 
the Son of man cannot hereby be identical. If, then, 
Christ was the Son of man, how could he be the supreme 
God? — Job (xxxv., 8,) says, "Thy righteousness may 
profit the Son of man." — David also mentioned the sons 
of men. (Ps. iv., °2.) — Isaiah (Is. li., 12,) asks, " Who art 
thou, that thou shouldst be afraid of a man, that shall die, 
and the Son of man, which shall be made as grass?" — -Eze- 
kiel (Ezek. xxii.. 2, &c.,) represents the word of the 
Lord as saying, " Now, thou Son of man, wilt thou judge 
the bloody city?" — Daniel (Dan. vii., 13,) says, " One 
like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven." 
This expression is not very uncommon in the ancient 
scriptures; and how can it be applicable to Christ, if he 
were not bom of man, as alleged? — The terror appended to 
the coming, seems to have been also derived from the Old 
Testament. — Isaiah (Is. lxvi., 15,) says, "The Lord will 
come with fire;" and Malachi (Mal.iv., 1 and 5,) declares, 
"The day cometh-that, shall burn as an oven, and shall 
burn up the proud and the wicked, saith the Lord; and I 
will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the 
great and dreadful day of the Lord." And the disciples 
evidently understood that Elias [or Elijah] had already 
come in the person of John the Baptist. (Matt, xvii., 12.) 
— From all which, we conclude that the Second Advent 
was sincerely expected by them, to occur during their 
life. 

Now, if the belief of the Jews concerning the actual 
death of Christ while affixed to the cross on Calvary, and 
the belief of the apostles concerning the second coming, 
were equivalent to absolute and certain knowledge, it 
would subvert the position we have been induced to take; 
but, as they were mistaken or misunderstood him in the 
one case, as they evidently did, instead of invalidating, it 
rather contributes to fortify us; for, why might they not 
have been mistaken in the other? The Jews discredited 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 107 

his reappearance or resurrection; because, they were so 
taught: they also believed in his death, for the same 
reason. They naturally inferred, as any one would at the 
present or at any other day, that, if he died, and a report 
of his resurrection was circulated by one party, to whom 
he had appeared, and contradicted by another who had 
not seen him, the contradiction was the more credible; 
and it required stronger evidence to establish such an un- 
wonted fact. Hence, we perceive that even some of the 
disciples were tardy believers. But, it is observable that 
the Jews were partially mistaken in the reappearance, 
which presumes their liability to mistake in the death; and 
on their faith in the latter, they based their disbelief of the 
former. It must be remembered that Caiaphas, the Jew- 
ish high priest, predicted the death of Christ; and this 
circumstance, from such authority and their confidence in 
it, tended to rivet their secondary and adopted conviction, 
which evidently misled them. If he had been very public 
among them, the story of the priests and soldiers that his 
body had been stolen, would have been very short-lived 
and of limited extension. Thus, we seethe popular opin- 
ion had some considerable countenance for support. — 
They deceived themselves likewise by misinterpreting the 
ancient writings, if those writings indicated him as a 
spiritual ruler; for, they expected a temporal one. This 
was common to the Jews proper and to the disciples, even 
after the resurrection. Hence, we detect another mis- 
take, of which it was difficult to convince them. 

If then they erred in these two palpable particulars, how 
much more probable that they were deluded in such a criti- 
cal matter as that of life and death ! It is a point of no small 
nicety to determine whether a man is really dead, especi- 
ally when circumstanced as was the alleged decease of 
Christ. Consider the brevity of time he was on the 
cross, the fact that they did not break his legs with the 
mallet as was done to others, notwithstanding the Jews 



108 



THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE! 



urged it, (John xix., 31,) and that a soldier under the 
command of the friendly Pilate merely pierced his side 
with a spear; that he was deposited in a friend's tomb by 
the hands of a disciple; that the superstitious guards fled 
at his reappearance; that he was entombed not more than 
thirty-six hours; i. e., one hour on Friday, twenty-four 
hours on Saturday, and eleven hours on Sunday, includ- 
ing two nights and one whole day; that he walked, con- 
versed, eat, and drank with his disciples, before the as- 
cent; and that he was seen and heard for years after- 
wards in different places. Then take into the account 
that, in all ages, persons have been buried alive. Many, 
very many, have been sadly deceived in judgment con- 
cerning the extinction of life in their dearest relatives and 
friends: suspended animation has eluded the most vigilant, 
interested, and experienced eyes. Indeed, " instances 
are recorded by Pliny*" of individuals who came to life 
again on the funeral pile, after it was set on fire, so that 
they could not be preserved; and of others who, having re- 
vived before the pile was kindled, returned home on their 
feet :"• and the Romans kept their corpses two or three 
days. Even the files of our newspapers testify to the 
same. Likewise, a remarkable instance occurred about 
that time. Caligula proposed to place his statue in the 
temple of Jerusalem. When king Agrippa heard of the 
proposal, he fainted away, and did not recover his senses 
till the third day. Others might be enumerated; but, the 
truth is so self evident, that it needs no series of specified 
cases to sustain it. In consideration of all these hints, 
then, how problematic must have been the death of Christ, 
his body having been interred on the same day! The 
evidence in favor of his having survived the pangs of 
crucifixion certainly appears to us stronger than that 
against it. 

And yet notwithstanding the signal disappointment of 

* Pliny vu\, 52, s. 53, and xxvi., 3, s. 8. 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 109 

those who were better furnished with the means of know- 
ing than any succeeding generation, this dogma has, every 
three or four centuries since the commencement of the 
Christian era, lashed a certain portion of mankind into a 
phrenzy of fear. It has been Lo, here! and Lo, there! 
through and from the age of the apostles. St. John in 
the first century, Justin Martyr and Irenjsus in the 
second and third, Tertullian and Lactantius in the 
third and fourth centuries, kept up a continual agitation 
among believers concerning a millennium. With occa- 
sional pauses, it has been carefully preserved in the ark 
of safety, and transmitted for the edification of posterity; 
so that, should this earth be ever destroyed, the prophecy, 
or their interpretation of the dictum, may be fulfilled 
to the letter. It will only be necessary to lengthen the 
prophetic years a little more. Towards the close of the 
fifteenth century, Florimoncl* wrote a work on the Anti- 
christ. " The increase of sorcery and witchcraft, ? ' said 
he, " all agree, is to distinguish the melancholy period of 
Christ's advent; and was age ever so afflicted with them 
as ours?" One would naturally infer from the accounts, 
that, instead of a benevolent Saviour of mankind, we were 
to be visited by a ruthless and relentless ravager and de- 
stroyer,; instead of a gentle Lamb, we were to expect a 
rabid tiger; instead of the meek and lowly Jesus, we 
were to witness the advent of a hideous, terrific, and un- 
feeling demon. And the advocacy of such revolting senti- 
ments, as emanating from the Bible, has invested that 
book with a forbidding aspect, and has been exceedingly 
fruitful in unbelief. In lieu of a melancholy period, we 
should predicate a cheerful one, to be consistent with 
Christ's character. Should there, however, be any thing 
dreadful or melancholy about it, those who, after having 

^Florimond on Anti-christ, ch. vii., n. 5 3 quoted by Delrio de 
Magia. p. 820. 



110 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J 

secured the honest confidence of their hearers, have con- 
taminated the world with their corrupt doctrines, by in- 
dustriously disseminating them broadcast, and declaring 
them to be proper principles of action, fit examples for 
imitation, and worthy of universal adoption and applica- 
tion, those are the individuals who will probably experi- 
ence the horror. Others have contributed their aid to 
keep the chain of this doctrine's promulgation unbroken. 
Even among ourselves, we find it revived, and blazing 
forth with all its pristine brilliancy. We have indeed no 
sorcery or witchcraft to speak of; but, all nature seems 
to reel and to be in commotion; at least, we are so told by 
the news-journals. And if there be any truth in reported 
sigfis, the Biblical expounders of this generation have 
certainly an equal claim with their predecessors to a be- 
lief in an approaching millenium. But, however much 
such movements may subserve a temporary expedient; or 
gain accessions to this or that denominational altar; or 
terrify people into a supposition that they have religion; 
their consequences will be direful ravages of the moral, 
intellectual, and the physical domain. Having deemed 
the instructions of the Bible infallible, and finding its ap- 
parent predictions fail, they will be apt to doom the whole 
indiscriminately to condemnation, as they now do those 
who cannot believe their assertions. 



OR. BOOK OF DOGMAS. 1 1 1 



REFLECTIONS. 



Thus have we cursorily surveyed the ground, by mak- 
ing selections of the most prominent themes and dogmas, 
adhered to by most theologians: we have ventured to ex- 
amine and to pass our judgment on them seriatim; and we 
find how little independent thought has been bestowed 
upon these dangerous excrescences of superstition, and 
now wofully fettered are the reasoning powers of our 
race! Our examination has introduced us to the secret 
of unbelief, and into a view of the errors of belief. 

In his youth, man has been taught to respect and revere 
his parents' spiritual teacher, as an inspired messenger of 
God; and his unsuspecting confidence has thereby been 
won. His childish simplicity has adopted their assertion 
of his own ignorance of the subject, of the minister's riper 
age, judgment, and abilities, of his superior means through 
his profession and devoted study to investigate it, of his 
conscientious regard for the truth, of his exceedingly in- 
tense desire to search for it, and when found, to divulge it 
faithfully to his hearers, all these combined, have tended to 
invest him with a species of infallibility, and to constitute 
him an oracle. Through the years of youth to manhood, 
this idea daily buried itself deeper and deeper, and fastened 
itself stronger and stronger in his mind. His surrounding 
friends, — the whole domestic and neighboring atmosphere 
— were and are all tinctured with the same: and when he 
has attained manhood, the least distrust or doubt of the 
minister's infallibility, though observation presses convic- 
tion upon him, — or the unwillingness he has to believe 



112 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 

himself to have been so long deceived by such a prepos- 
terous idea, though the ghastly fact of deception stares 
him broad in the face, — wounds his pride, and makes him 
shrink even from private ^//"-acknowledgement. He re- 
gards the doubt as the ringleader of traitors; artd his own 
heart, as the council-chamber of treason. He is immod- 
erately diffident of his powers of discrimination; and 
dreads to say, " our minister is but a man, liable to err 
like other men." This is not strange: for, he has been 
taught that the verse, "He that believeih not, shall be 
damned" is especially and almost solely applicable to 
those who hear the minister, — and enjoins them to admit 
•all he says without hesitation or doubt. He has been 
steeped in a vapor-bath of mysteries; and before his rea- 
son had become matured, like the shorn Samson, it war 
bound, fettered, and manacled, with the forged chains of 
worse than Egyptian servitude. And if he now venture to 
insist on a satisfactory answer to an independent inquiry, 
while in this helpless condition, he is unceremoniously ex- 
communicated and anathematized as a worthless outcast. 
These impressions then have an additional guard: they 
are environed by a circle of fire, — the fire of persecution. 
They are fastened to the inmost recess of the mind with 
the thongs of terror. Precisely so has it been before with 
Unitheism, if we consider Socrates drinking the fatal 
hemlock. So also was it once with Reformation, if we 
glance at the crucified Jesus on Calvary. In like man- 
ner was it with Science, if we contemplate Galileo in the 
dungeons of the Holy Inquisition. And even so was it with 
Liberty, if we recal to mind the dangers of the Revolution' 
ary Heroes. A doubt was their leading genius: and 
though it conducted them through the severe road of 
persecution, it finally led them to an unfading immortali- 
ty. The identical principle of distrust in the prevailing 
corrupt opinions of their respective ages, which was so 
stigmatized and doomed by bigotry, preserved their names 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 113 

from oblivion. And yet, brazen-faced intolerance con* 
tinues to roam about the world, and to arrogate to her- 
self alone the right of independence, and the perfect crite- 
rion of faith! Now, what self-evident truth requires a 
verse of condemnation to secure its credence? And what 
truth should be more self-evident than one, on the unqual- 
ified credence of which depends a man's eternal happi- 
ness ? 

But, man still labors under the lethargy inculcated to 
him by his pastor, and refrains from examination. He 
proceeds to reason upon the assumption that all the doc- 
trines he has been habituated to hear, are in the Bible: he 
then either continues his belief in them, or discards the 
whole book with disgust as a useless farrago. He has 
indeed been urged to " search the scriptures like the 
noble Bereans, whether those things were so"; but, he 
must not see any thing therein different from his pulpit's 
instructions; he must not construe a syllable differently 
from the general acceptation of the parish: he must use 
the minister's spectacles, not his own. Thus, is he con- 
vinced that it is about as well to admit the pastoral in- 
terpretation without dispute; for, however much he may 
search, he will, after all, be compelled to arrive at the 
same result; and he naturally chooses the easiest, the 
shortest, the least perilous way, and thereby sinks into 
the above named lethargy. He has indeed avoided heresy, 
but contracted a mental paralysis. We hope, however, 
that ere long, the Samson, REASON will recover its shorn 
locks, and dash the pillars of superstition's temple, involv- 
ing in one common destruction the host of Philistine pre- 
judices and errors, while itself will rise triumphant from 
the massive ruins. And since they are determined to 
keep them clipped, it becomes every true friend of lib- 
eral principles and of the human race, every admirer of 
pure Christianity, to seize the shears, and beat thern into 
a plough-share and a pruning-knife ; and let them no longer, 
8 



114 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; 

by their opening for this unholy purpose, describe a min- 
iature cross in mockery of the emblem of our religion! 

Thus, we perceive that the believer and the unbeliever 
have started from the same point, and neither of them 
have advanced in a right line. Both have diverged from 
the proper track; and every progressive step increases 
the distance between them, and diminishes the effect of 
their interchanged shots. And yet, they belong to the 
same parentage, are derived from the same stock, are 
members of the same human family, are professedly in 
pursuit of the same vital object, and are destined to the 
same bourne. Both have deviated from reason: inasmuch 
as the one has indiscriminately adopted all the main doc- 
trines imparted by his teacher, as contained in the Bible, 
and the sentiment that all contained therein is genuine 
and true; while the other has as indiscriminately rejected 
the whole, without allowing it a fair hearing: for, it com- 
prises many truths and much wholesome advice. Were 
it but a magazine of the notions we have been consider- 
ing', not even the pulpit would save them. 

We now design to frame a brief 



SYNOPSIS OF THE DOGMAS 



cursorily touched upon by us, and the main consequence 
of each; and then to conclude our essay. The idea of 
plenary inspiration is the first stumbling block, and in- 
volves a little of the ridiculous: for, what person, in his 
sober senses, would ever dream that it required divine in- 
terposition to relate that the "Lord met Moses by the 
way in an inn, and sought to kill him"? (Exodus iv., 24,) 
or that Paul needed it to ask Timothy to " bring his cloak 
that he left at Troas with Carpus, and the boohs and parch- 
ments!" (2 Tim. iv., 13,) or that it was necessary for the 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 115 

interpolation of the verse of the three heavenly witnesses? 
(1 John v. 5 7.) This idea not only presumes every word 
of the Bible to have been inspired, but it shelters under 
the same sacred cover such doctrines as the ministers may 
allege to be therein, whether they are really so, or not. — 
The system of faith, as preached from some pulpits, exerts 
an evil influence. A hearer believes that his minister 
preaches a correct view of the Bible's contents; that, 
however incompatible with reason and common sense it 
may appear, himself must necessarily be wrong, and his 
teacher invariably right; for, " he says the Bible says so 
and means so, and I believe he is ordained to interpret it." 
Then comes the verse, "He that believeth not, shall be 
damned." (Mark xvi., 16.) Who uttered this sentiment? 
Christ. The fact is not to be disputed. But, now to the 
assumed application and construction: " He that believeth 
not" the Bible, as expounded by the minister, "shall be 
damned " bxj the Almighty, If therefore an unbeliever in 
these peculiar tenets is condemned by God, it must be the 
imperative duty of the pastor to deal out the condemna- 
tion, as a commissioned agent: for, in his estimation, such 
a course is in accordance with the divine will, and receives 
the divine approbation. So also think his flock. Hence, 
they feel countenanced and commanded to persecute an 
unbeliever. The doctrine is accordingly productive of 
intolerance and persecution; and is based in self-conceit. — 
Implicit faith is the foundation of half the gossip in circu- 
lation; for, did not the community evince such a readiness 
to believe, gossips would not be so ready to communicate, 
(Matt, v., 37,) magnify, and fabricate. The term mystery 
is a secret closet, in which, we are told, lie concealed the 
significations of many dogmas, apparently unreasonable 
and absurd; and that it is sacrilegious to pry into them, 
or to doubt the assertions to this effect, made by the min- 
ister: for, he knows, — only God has not seen fit to endow 
him with the gift of explaining the mystery. This implies 



1J6 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 

a distrust of the minister, after all; for, why not admit him 
into full communion? If he does not know, why this de- 
ception? By means of the alleged mysterious significa- 
tions, many abominable doctrines have been servilely suf- 
fered to disgrace the earth. In embracing the Trinity, 
you embrace a body without an inherent soul; for, the 
soul is in the secret closet, and you are not permitted to 
enter, or even to attempt an entrance of, the sacred en- 
closure. Its self-evident absurdity has created many an 
unbeliever in the whole Bible. It has paganized Christ- 
ianity, by deifying the son of man. It has duped reason, 
by insinuating itself into the credence through the gate of 
imagination or some passion, or by climbing up some 
other way; (John x., 1,) and it has effected a perversion 
of reason. The doctrine of original depravity is fruitful 
in misanthropy and slander; for, it imbues one with detest- 
able ideas of his fellow-creatures: and he is thereby liable 
to regard a neighbor as his lawful prey. Such believers 
cannot certainly have much confidence in their own integ- 
rity. The doctrine of arbitrary grace generates reckless-, 
ness of conduct. That of election produces bigotry. That 
of indiscriminate, unqualified, adulatory prayer promotes 
hypocrisy. That of regeneration allows a criminal to 
prosecute a wicked course for years, and to be pardoned 
in a few moments; and involves an absurdity. That of 
vicarious atonement confounds the distinctions of right and 
wrong, prompts to injustice between man and man, shields 
crime, and presupposes no merit in good acts. That of 
endless punishment recommends eternal grudges among 
mankind for every slight misdemeanor, a perpetual re- 
membrance of an affront without pardon, no forbearance, 
no forgiveness, and the continuance of a black system o 
hatred and revenge. That of hell, damnation, devil, and 
the by-word use of God's name, bandied by men of current 
respectability from the pulpit, is instrumental to the cause 
of profanity. Indeed, most of the rank errors afloat in the 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 117 

community are attributable to these prolific sources; for, 
the example is set directly or indirectly by the preaching. 
The terrors of all of them are well calculated to drive 
people to insanity. Protracted and crowded meetings and 
their consequent excitement ruin health, do no good what- 
ever, and are pestiferous with evil. If the above-enumer- 
ated unreasonable perversions should be universally acted 
upon by the human race in their daily transactions, a de- 
plorable state of affairs would obtain. And yet, such as 
have unconsciously imbibed those principles, and have con- 
ducted according to their tenor, are vehemently denounced 
by their very promulgators, for so doing; thus, proving 
their generation of ingratitude also, the basest of evils! 

We respectfully invite the believer and the unbeliever 
of every grade to abandon the extremes of diverging and 
rancorous separation, and to meet each other half way, on 
the middle ground, where they can profitably unite in one 
common cause, and blend their energies together in the 
advancement of truth. The remaining doctrines and their 
consequences .we leave to the candid consideration of 
each, that he may form his own opinion concerning their 
value and tendency, while we hasten to the 



CONCLUSION. 



The faculty of reason, according to the adaptation of 
means to ends, is introduced within us to make nature's 
operations intelligible to us; and it follows that a faculty 
or attribute of similar properties must have created ours, 
as well as the things cognizable by it, planning and con- 
trolling those operations. This faculty has always been 
cramped by servility of belief, and subjugation to others' 
opinions, to too much confidence in foreign appliances, 
8* 



118 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 

and too little exercise of itself. Ancient philosophers 
were prone to the same. In essence, their philosophies 
were like our sectarian tenets. Did the Almighty reason 
chain itself to a sect, it would be fallible. It is never in 
full power, unless freedom attends it. What absurdity, 
what cruelty, what infamy, to recommend, dictate, enforce 
a course insuring its prostration, to disarm it entirely, and 
then to deride and decry it! And that too, by professing 
to use your own, which must be equally fallible! So did 
the taunting Philistines mock Samson, after they had de- 
prived him of his strength and his eyes. — The mental fac- 
ulties are progressive almost ad infinitum. They are not 
stationary and impotent, except from abuse advised by ig- 
norant men, — ignorant in the most useful matter. It is 
therefore clear as crystal that, if any one subserviently 
submits to another's judgment, he does wrong: if he be- 
lieves, merely because others for ages preceding have be- 
lieved the" same, he does wrong: if he accepts or rejects a 
question of so much importance as religion, with rash 
precipitancy, he also does wrong. - 

We would then have every one peruse the truths record- 
ed in the Bible, as truths in themselves considered, not 
subject to alteration, either by the addition or the want of 
a miracle, either by the application or the disagreement 
of a prophecy, as truths independent of every extraneous 
consideration, — stamped with the immutable basis of right, 
as truths embodying the same essence, whether inscribed 
on the page of a Grecian, a Chinese, or of a Jew, wheth- 
er uttered by the mouth of Isocrates or by Christ; let 
him do this, and he will not be liable to fall into such egre- 
gious errors; nor will he wreck so many credulous follow- 
ers on the quicksands of fear. He will rather look 
within, and nurture the germ implanted by his Maker in 
his heart at the first moment of his existence, and make the 
exercise of well cultivated faculties and well balanced 
passions, lodged within a sound and healthy body, the 



OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 119 

source of happiness — the kingdom of heaven, (Luke xvii., 
21,) than he listlessly and tremblingly gazing about at 
every Lo, here, and Lo, there, for a supply of religion, as 
merchants look for mercantile commodities from a foreign 
shore. If he has deviated from the path of nature, or vio- 
lated any of its laws, he will labor to repair 'the breach 
soon as possible; for, the science of amelioration consists 
in conforming the human head, heart, and body to the 
standard of nature, whose Author is God, rather than in 
eradicating every natural principle as a corrupt root. We 
would have him thoroughly understand before he believes; 
and rely mostly upon his own judgment in affairs of con- 
science; for, he alone is responsible for his own acts, and 
these are prompted, controlled by his creed; and if his 
judgment be defective, the blame cannot be imputable to 
him. Besides, if he depend on another, he would be a 
Catholic in Spain, a Mahometan in Arabia, and bend 
his knees before the Grand Lama in Tartary. There 
would be no stability in him. His religion would chalge 
with his residence, and often even without it. He must 
use his REASON; for, to what other faculty could a rev- 
elation be directed? What other one can comprehend 
any thing rational, or distinguish it from an absurdity? 
He will deduce religion, capable of boundless expan- 
sion, from that internal germ, which infuses more and 
more substantial happiness, as it increases and radiates its 
mild beams from its centre outwardly, rather than be de- 
luded into the idea that he can have it from an external 
source, at a moment's warning. Religion comes by sys- 
tem, it is true; but, it is the system of nature, not of art 
nor intriguing artifice. Its basis is reasonable affection, 
not terror nor insanity. " God is love. There is no fear 
in love. Fear hath torment. Perfect love casteth out fear. 
He that feareth is not made perfect in love." (1 John iv., 
16, 18.) Like every other natural production, religion 
thrives better in tranquillity than in excitement. 



120 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE. 

Let then the doctrines of the Bible be regarded in this 
light of moderation. Test them by that faculty, to which 
they are addressed. Read them with your own eyes; con- ( 
strue them with your own intelligence; feel them with 
your own heart. For each one individually, indepen- 
dently , and" directly, were they designed. No keeper nor 
dispenser was ever divinely commissioned to dole them out, 
in just such portions, in just such a manner, and with just 
such a tinge, as may please him. Let them be candidly 
viewed with the eye of reason, and we shall be able to 
distinguish between truths embodied and errors engrafted; 
to discard the latter as irrational excrescences, instead of 
rejecting the whole book as incorporating them. We 
shall be willing to allow credit to the salutary instructions 
therein contained, and the persevering labors of those who 
collected, promulgated, and disseminated them. We 
shall truly discern the corruptions unwarrantably ascribed 
thereto as genuine, and treat them as troublesome inter- 
lojfcrs, — the inquisitorial creatures of artful sectaries. 



APPENDIX. 



(A.) 

u This, verse is now generally given up; being in no Greek 
manuscript save one at Berlin, which is discovered to have been 
transcribed from the printed Biblia Complutensia: and another 
modern one at Dublin, probably translated or corrected from the 
Latin Vulgate. 

It is scarcely necessary to tell the reader, that, in 1516 and 
1519, Erasmus published his first and second editions of the 
Greek Testament, both which omitted the three heavenly wit- 
nesses; that, having promised to insert them in his text, if they 
were found in a single Greek MS., he was soon informed of the 
existence of such a MS. in England, and consequently inserted 
1 John v., 7, in his third edition, 1522; that this MS., after a 
profound sleep of two centuries, has at last been found in the 
library of Trinity College, Dublin : that the Complutensian edi- 
tion, which was not published till 1522, though it professes to 
have been printed in 1514, has the seventh and eighth verses 
patched up from the modern Latin MS., and the final clause of 
the eighth verse, which is omitted in its proper place, transferred 
to the end of the seventh; that Colinseus, in 1534, omitted the 
verse on the faith of MSS.; that R. Stephens, in his famous edi- 
tion of 1550, inserted the verse, and marked the words en to 
ouranOj [in heaven,] as wanting in seven MSS.; that Beza, sus- 
pecting no mistake, concluded that these seven MSS. contained 
the rest of the seventh verse, and the eighth with the words en 
te ge, [in earth.] 

Sir Isaac Newton, in his Dissertation on this passage, says that, 
when the adversaries of Erasmus had got the Trinity into his 
edition, they threw by their MS. as an almanac out of date. 

The text is not contained in any Greek MS., which was writ- 
ten earlier than the fifteenth century. — 2. Nor in any Latin MS. 



122 APPENDIX. 

earlier than the ninth century. — 3. It is not found in any of the 
ancient versions. — 4. It is not cited by any of the Greek ecclesi- 
astical writers; though to prove the doctrine of the Trinity, they 
have cited the words both before and after this. — 5. It is not 
cited by any of the early Latin Fathers, even when the subjects, 
upon which they treat, would naturally have led them to appeal 
to its authority. — 6. It is fitst cited by Vigilius Tapsensis, a 
Latin writer of no credit, in the latter end of the fifth century, and 
by him it is suspected to have been forged. — 7. It has been 
omitted as spurious in many editions of the New Testament 
since the Reformation : — in the first two of Erasmus, in those of 
Aldus, Colinaeus. Zwinglius, and lately of Griesbach. — 8. It was 
admitted by Luther in his German Version. In the old English 
Bibles of Henry VIIL, Edward VI., and Elizabeth, it was printed 
in small types, or included in brackets : but between the years 
1566 and 1580, it began to be piinted as it now stands:'' like a 
hypocrite sneaking stealthily about when known among honest 
men ; and when the popular voice countenances him in his prin- 
ciples, appears in full size, and bold without a blush. 

"It is evident that, if this text had been known from the be- 
ginning of Christianity, the ancients would have eagerly seized it, 
inserted it in their creeds, quoted it repeatedly against the here- 
tics, and selected it for the brightest ornament of every book 
that they wrote on the subject of the Trinity. In short, if this 
verse be really genuine, notwithstanding its absence from all the 
visible Greek MSS.' except two: one of which awkwardly trans- 
lates the verse from the Latin, and the other transcribes it from a 
printed book; notwithstanding its absence from all the versions 
except the Vulgate, and even from many of the best and oldest 
MSS. of the Vulgate; notwithstanding the deep and dead silence 
of all the Greek waiters down to the thirteenth, and most of the 
Latins dow r n to the middle of the eighth century: if, in spite of 
all these objections, it still be genuine, no 'part of Scripture what- 
soever can be proved either spurious or genuine." 



APPENDIX. 1^3 



(B.) 



" What the Latins have done to this text, (1 John v., 7.) the 
Greeks have do.ie to that of St. Paul (1 Timfchy iii., 16.) ; for, 
by changing o [which] into ® the abbreviation of Tkeos, [God] 
they now read, " Great is the mystery of godliness: God was 
manifested in the flesh :" whereas all ihe churches, for the first 
four or five hundred years, and the authors of all the ancient ver- 
sions. Jerome as well as the rest, read, " Great is the mystery of 
godliness, which was manifested in the flesh.*' — The authors, 
who wrote, in the fourth and fifth centuries, for the Deity of the 
Son, and incarnation of God, and some of ihern largely and in 
several tracts, were many ; and yet I cannot rind that they ever 
allege this text to prove it, excepting that Gregory Nyssen once 
urges it, [if the passage crept not into him out of some marginal 
annotation.] In all the times of the hot and lasting Arian con- 
troversy, it never came into play; though, now those disputes are 
over, they that read. l God was made manifest in the flesh,* 
think it one of the most obvious and pertinent texts for the busi- 
ness.'' — [Dissertation of Sir Isaac Newton written between the 
years 1690 and 1700. 



(C.) 

11 Owners of MSS. often wrote glosses or paraphrases of partic- 
ular passages between the lines, and ignorant transcribers some- 
times mistook these notes for interlined omissions by the original 
scribes, and accordingly, in re-copying the MSS., incorporated 
these glosses or paraphrases into the body of the text. For in- 
stance, Jerome, in one of his letters, says that an explanatory 
note which he himself had made in the margin of his Psalter had 
been incorporated by some transcriber into the text j and Dr. 
Bently, in the 96th page of his Epistle, annexed to Malala's 
Chronicle, has proved Sina oros estin ente Arabia, [is Mount Sinai, 
in Arabia,] to be of the same stamp." — [Catalogue of MSS. of the 
King's Library, Preface, p. 21. 



124 



APPENDIX. 



(D) 

Table of the time^and places when and where the Gospels, the 
Epistles, and me Revelation, were written, according to 
Dr. Lardner. 



Gospels. 
Matthew's, 
Mark's, 
Luke's, 
John's, 
Acts, by Luke, 



Places. 
Judea, «or near it, 
Rome, 
Greece, 
Ephesus, 
Greece, 



Epistles of Paul. 

1 Thessalonians, Corinth. 

2 Thessalonians, Corinth, 



Galatians, 
1 Corinthians, 

1 Timothy, 
Titus, 

2 Corinthians, 
Romans, 
Ephesiaus, 

2 Timothy, 

Philippians, 

Colossians, 

Philemon, 

Hebrews. 



Corinth or Ephesus, 

Ephesus, 

Macedonia, 

Macedonia, or near 

Macedonia, 

Corinth, 

Rome, 

Rome, 

Rome, 

Rome, 

Rome, 

Rome or Italy, 



Years. A. D. 

About 64 

64 

63 or 64 

68 

63 or 64 

A. D. 

52 

52 

Near the beginning of 53 

Beginning of 66 

56 

it, Before the end of 56 

About October, 57 

About February, 58 

About April, 61 

About May, 61 

Before the end of 62 

Before the end of 62 

Before the end of 62 

In the Spring of 63 



General Epistles. 
Of James, Judea, 

Of Peter, Rome, 

John's 1st, Ephesus, 

John's 2d & 3d, Ephesus, 
Of Jude, Unknown, 

Revelation, - Patmos or Ephesus, 



A. D. 61. or the beginning of 62 

64 

• About 80 

Between 89 and 90 

64 or 65 

95 or 96 



-^ ^ 

















'i 



# 









•'^ .A^' 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: August 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

*0 Q \ a world leader in paper preservation 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 
y <r „ .. o ? -VT 



\> 




kP < 









'K 






4> 






' fJ 'r & 



















,0 c?. 



.v 



V 












? .- ** 






,0o 



.0 J 







